Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control

Statement by uninvolved editor Ubikwit
I've noticed the action on this article and talk page from contributions made by people on my watch list, but have not gotten involved in the ongoing content dispute. On the other hand, when I did get around to taking a look at the article, I noticed what can only be described as an astoundingly poorly sourced section related to Japan that amounted to presenting a contrived view of history in order to promote the position that gun control is equivalent to oppressive government or something to that effect. Even the title of that section "Japan of the Shogunate" (as opposed to "Tokugawa Japan" or "Edo period Japan") was a strange construct that would not have been seen outside of Wikipedia. It does, however, demonstrate how ignorant the editor that posted that text was of Japanese history, as there have been more than one Shogunate in Japan. So why is it that people that don't have a adequate knowledge on a topic or RS that hold up to scrutiny post such bullshit? I would think that there may be issues related to misrepresentation of sources to push a POV on this politically charged topic, but such form of advocacy would seem to be nothing new and a problem that Wikipedia has yet to devise a method of adequately dealing with due to the close relationship of the editing conduct to the ambiguity of some of the content related policies. A number of well-considered comments have been made regarding the recent content dispute, but it is beyond me as to whether those comments demonstrate that the problem is solely a content dispute, or embodies conduct issues that can be dealt with here. Contentious editing is not necessarily something that requires examination under the microscope, so to speak. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 22:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * user:EdChem has posted findings that confirm and highlight the problem of misrepresentation of sources, a problem that is anything but trivial on contentious topics with a religious or political dimension. It's more insidious than WP:OR because it remains obscured until someone checks the sources, making it harder to catch, and leading to further complications. Maybe the community needs a stronger policy to deal with that, but the relevant findings of this case could serve to elucidate the possible parameters for creating or modifying policy.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Arthur Rubin
Although there are content and policy issues, in addition to conduct issues (most of which amount to WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT, rather than outright personal attacks), there is the question of which policies apply and what they mean. I known ArbCom doesn't comment on content or set policies, but I believe it may comment on policy. If I'm wrong, then this needs to await specific diffs before it can be determined whether the matter should be before ArbCom. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by tangentally involved Black Kite
Contentious political subject inevitably produces contentious article. The locus of the dispute is a number of people (including, but not limited to US right-leaning and pro-gun editors) wishing to include an extended analysis of the Nazis' gun control laws in order, it appears, to promote the synthesis of the flawed "gun control=Nazism" myth popular amongst the NRA and their associated fellow travellers. There is a perfectly good article for discussing this issue, and it is Gun control in Germany; it doesn't need a prominent place here. Having said that, this is a content dispute; I don't see any behaviour by editors raising itself to the point where ArbCom needs to step in. Edit: having read ROG5728's comment, especially the response to Andy, I withdraw that; positions are too entrenched and the material being added potentially offensive to casual editors so that the committee may indeed, wish to accept.

Issues at WP:ANI in the very recent past Oddly, neither of these reports were linked by Gaijin42 in their list of attempts to resolve this case. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 18 December: Gaijin42, ROG5728, Justanonymous and North8000 attempt to get Goethean topic banned. It doesn't go well, including Gaijin42 being temporarily blocked for a post which insinuates Holocaust denial of other editors
 * 30 December: ROG5728 and others involved here attempt to get AndyTheGrump blocked and/or topic banned. This doesn't go well either when it is revealed that ROG5728 has canvassed only the editors that support their POV to comment on the report.

@North8000, in the first link, you suggest "Give Gooethen a rest from the article", so I don't think that is incorrect. I take your point that in the second ANI, although you back up others involved, you don't specifically ask for sanctions, so I have reworded that link. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by outside editor Robert McClenon
This is a long-simmering content dispute with conduct issues interfering with the ability to resolve the content issues. The content issues are inherently contentious due to the subject matter, making it difficult but essential for the encyclopedic article to present a neutral point of view, reflecting the merits of all positions on gun control without undue weight. I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to look at the conduct issues that have interfered with the (already difficult) goal of achieving NPOV on content. ArbCom is the only forum that is able to address the conduct issues that interfere with addressing the content issues (that is, the need to present NPOV.) (More generally, it is my opinion that when what appears to be a content dispute continues to simmer as long as this one has, it is likely to involve conduct issues that may need to be addressed by ArbCom.)

I ask ArbCom in particular to ask the following questions as to fact:
 * Have any of the named parties or other editors engaged in edit-warring, including both slow-motion edit-warring and 3RR violations?
 * Have any of the named parties or other editors engaged in personal attacks?

I ask ArbCom in particular to ask the following questions as to remedies:
 * Should any of the named parties or other editors be topic-banned from Gun control, broadly defined?
 * Should any of the named parties or other editors be site-banned?
 * Should Gun control be placed under discretionary sanctions? (I would recommend Yes.)

I ask the ArbCom to look beyond the arguments of the filing party for which the ArbCom should consider this case against other editors and consider whether the filing party is part of the problem and whether BOOMERANG should apply. The filing party, who has gamed the RFC process, is part of the problem, but that is my opinion, and I trust ArbCom to consider the evidence neutrally.

The filing party has, as noted on the talk page, used the Requests for Comments process to try to approve questionable additions to the article, and then civility has broken down. I ask ArbCom to look at the long-standing conduct issues, the recent conduct issues, and whether there has been gaming of the system.

This is exactly the sort of case which only ArbCom can resolve effectively. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the ArbCom will accept this case. I have a few comments to go into the case. I will summarize the events as follows. Other editors will have other views.

The disputants in this case consist of gun-rights advocates, including the filing party, and gun-control advocates. The filing party and other gun-rights advocates posted an article content Request for Comments to add a controversial paragraph (or multiple paragraphs) into the article, linking Nazi gun control measures with the Holocaust. Gun-control advocates, and some neutral editors, consider this linkage to be synthesis amounting to original research. The RFC is still open, as the 30 days have not yet run. The discussions of the RFC led to personal attacks. Two ANI threads were filed concerning the personal attacks. Both were closed with no consensus. (There will never be a consensus about the rightness or wrongness of gun control, and it is hard to reach anything resembling a consensus on how to present the arguments on both sides in NPOV.) However, what those threads do is to illustrate the corrosive nature of the dispute. (It appears that the arbitrators are agreeing that only the ArbCom can deal with the dispute.) Then, while the RFC is still open, the filing party chose to submit this RfAr. The sequence of an RFC, ANI threads, and an RfAr appears to be forum shopping. Based on the wording of the filing party's statement, the filing party appears to be asking the ArbCom to decide a content dispute, by ruling that anyone disagreeing with the controversial position is in denial of the facts or is acting in bad faith. However, sometimes an RfAr should be accepted even if the filing party is forum shopping. The filing party, in my opinion, threw a boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The persistent corrosive nature of this dispute is comparable to that of various regional international disputes (Arab-Israeli, India-Pakistan) that require the draconian measure of WP:Discretionary sanctions to permit uninvolved administrators to impose special remedies. The topic, broadly construed, of gun control, should be placed under discretionary sanctions. The ArbCom is also requested to consider the evidence and impose appropriate remedies, such as topic bans or even site bans, on specific editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user:EdChem
If this case is taken, I suggest that ArbCom examine whether misrepresentation of sources is a problem. I looked at the article and noticed the following sentence in the Nazi section:


 * Gun rights advocates such as the Democratic Congressman John Dingell[42][43] NRA (voiced by NRA presidents Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre), Stephen Halbrook, and others in the international[44] [45] debate on gun control have argued that these laws were an enabling factor in The Holocaust, that prevented Jews and other victims from implementing an effective resistance, [39][46][47] [48], and have used allusions to the Nazis in the modern gun control debate context.

This statement has two references (44 and 45) for the assertion of international (non-US) gun rights advocates that gun control in Nazi Germany was an enabling factor in the Holocaust. I was very surprised by ref 44 being from Professor Simon Chapman, as I would not expect such a position from him. So, I looked at the source where in a section on p. 221 under a heading  'Hitler tried to disarm the Germans'  he notes that the gun lobby have invoked Nazi Germany, but I contend that the section is in no way advocating for gun rights. As an academic, Chapman is acknowledging that an argument has been advanced, citing examples of the position being criticized (and even ridiculed), and not in any way advocating for gun rights. I suggest this is a misrepresentation of the Chapman reference. Note that our article on Chapman describes him as a "key member of the Coalition for Gun Control which won the 1996 Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's Community Human Rights award for its advocacy for gun law reform after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996", so my surprise at a Chapman authored reference being cited for others who have advocated that gun control laws "were an enabling factor in The Holocaust" is justified.

This led me to look at reference 45, though I know little of the arguments in the Canadian context. The source writes (on p. 218): "As had occurred in the 1970s, organizations representing firearm owners made analogies between modern arms control and the policies of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia." This is not a statement from the author advocating gun rights, it is a recognition that arguments were advanced and the overall context does not suggest it is the author's view, nor that the argument is credible. In fact, the only occurrence of the word "Nazi" in the google books preview of pp. 217-219 is in this sentence, and it is not advocating for gun rights.

These two references might support an assertion that a comparison to Nazi Germany has been offered outside the US, though in each case the context of the comments in each reference is (in my view) misrepresented in the gun control article as neither author is advocating gun rights, and neither appears to see the argument as legitimate. If there is a wide-spread problem with misrepresentation of sources in the article, this is a behavioural issue on which ArbCom can act. EdChem (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
This appears to be a case about argumentum ad nazium. Please accept. Jehochman Talk 10:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by ArtifexMayhem (involved at some level)
Obviously committee decisions are based on the weight of evidence that shows patterns of behavior that are disruptive to the process of building an encyclopedia. In this case many of these patterns are subtle and evidence of their existence will rarely turn on small number of diffs that show reasonably explicit violations of our policies and guidelines. The process of collecting, weighting, and presenting evidence in case of this nature is likely to be tedious and time consuming. As such, I would ask the committee to consider extending the evidence phase of this case from the start. Thank you. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Malke2010
Some of the editors listed here are topic banned from the "Tea Party movement, broadly construed." Recently, Xenophrenic asked the Arbs if an article he had edited was included, these are the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=588620966#Clarification_request:_Tea_Party_movement comments left by arbitrators]. This gave me pause since I'd made an edit request on Gun control just today. I realized this article might be part of the 'broadly construed' language since gun control seems to be an issue for at least a few of these tea party groups. It might be a good idea if the Arbs would decide if Gun control is off-limits straight-away. My edit request there was related to grammar and not content per se, and I was going to get a reference from the OED to show why the edit should be made. I'm not going to do that now since I think this article is possibly off-limits and I do not want to violate the ban in any way. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by FiachraByrne (recently and tangentially involved editor)
I have no opinion at this point on any possible editor conduct issues arising from this case.

In terms of policy, I'm not sure that all those raised in the case request merit much examination by this committee.

WP:FRINGE is defined by the relationship of a given work, interpretation or idea to the relevant academic mainstream and not to its "truth" status.

The opinion that because a given historical interpretation references "facts" - undisputed or otherwise - it is not fringe is to misunderstand that such a historical interpretation may also be fringe because of the decontextualisation of those facts, elision of other relevant factors, lack of engagement with the scholarly secondary literature (which may offer more robust interpretations) and, of course, distance from the academic mainstream.

The thesis that gun control was significant to the Holocaust is undoubtedly fringe. This is so as the thesis has no presence whatsoever within mainstream Holocaust studies (no mention, citation, review or rebuttal at all) - a fact which the most significant proponent of the thesis, Stephen Halbrook, readily concedes. In this instance, the "fringeness" of the Nazi gun control thesis is established by its absence in the relevant (expert) reliable sources.

Likewise, those who rebut his thesis have no expertise in the history of Nazi Germany and we essentially have a species of "law office" history which seeks to instrumentalise the past, in the context of a US domestic debate on the merits and demerits of gun control, to serve present-day, partisan, political goals. Even if invoke WP:PARITY, as no experts on the Holocaust have engaged in this debate there is a significant problem of how to properly contextualise this thesis and relate its status to mainstream historical narratives and analysis.

WP:OR relates to article content, not to the research of sources necessary to usefully edit a topic; to comply with WP policy and guidelines it is necessary to evaluate the quality and relevance of sources prior to editing - including evaluating whether they are fringe or not.

The last point of potential policy relates to the purported systemic bias of the article and notability of the thesis. These questions are complicated by a certain degree of confusion/disagreement over the article subject and whether it is in fact a point of view fork of Gun politics in the United States. A solution to this problem has been suggested on the article talk page which might be quite workable (that is, that the subject of the article should be largely the US gun control debate post-1963 when the issue became increasingly politicised in the US). FiachraByrne (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note
There was a longstanding RFC on the talk page, Talk:Gun control, which I've closed procedurally. I copy my rationale from there:"Coming here in response to a closure request at WP:AN. I'm closing this procedurally because this topic is now the subject of an arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. I doubt that anyone would benefit from this RFC being closed either as 'yes' or as 'no' in the current climate, since it might well disrupt the arbitration case. Should the arbitrators indicate that they're okay with it being closed substantively (i.e. as yes or no), I'll happily come back, either to close it substantively or to un-close it so someone else can close it substantively."Should arbitrators or clerks wish for a substantive closure, just let me know; if this is deemed a good decision, or if nobody discusses it at all, there's no need to notify me. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to get the Nazi material removed from that article until the ArbCom is concluded? Lightbreather (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, because ArbCom doesn't directly make content decisions.  Roger Davies  talk 13:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Nyttend, that's a good way of dealing with it. It might be good if one of the clerks added a link to the RFC on the evidence page. Roger Davies talk 13:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this
I suppose it's too late to do this, and I'm not sure this is where one would propose it anyway, but 1. Considering his proposals on the Gun control talk page and 2. His subsequent work to push Nazi material into the related Gun politics in the United States (documented here; FYI, I've asked for a 3O on it), I think Anythingyouwant should be named as an involved party in this ArbCom. Lightbreather (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The best place to put it would probably be in a request for a new case, seeing as how the material in question was in the US article before the general gun control case was opened (i.e. everyone could have brought it up much earlier in this case than now). Not that I want there to be a new case, but you can surely request it.  Beware the boomerang though. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but let's be clear, the Gun politics in the U.S. article mentioned the Holocaust and Nazis NOWHERE in the body of the article prior to Jan. 3. There was ONE reference to Nazis in a footnote - about as much weight the material was due without serious discussion and consensus. Then, between Jan. 3 (when Gun control was edit protected) and Jan. 6 (when this ArbCom was started), and while you were involved in the Gun control article Nazi content dispute, you pushed added PARAGRAPHS of Nazi content into the article and NUMEROUS Nazi references. Lightbreather (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No pushing was involved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding Anythingyouwant as a party; it might be an idea to add Hipocrite too as there are remedies proposed concerning him on the workshop page. I must stress that being added as a party is not a presumption of guilt, or a pointed finger; it's simply a means of formally notifying people who are alluded too on case pages that they have stuff they may need to respond too. Clerks: before actioning anything here, can you please wait to see what Seraphimblade has to say as I'm hours ahead of him, time-zone wide. Thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 13:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roger, including echoing that adding someone as a party is not a finding of wrongdoing or an intent to sanction them, it's just to let them know they should monitor and if desired respond to proposals that might mention them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already maxed out on evidence, and the evidence period is closed, so I am confused about how I would respond to what anyone might say about me. I definitely don't want to be an involved party (as my experience with Arbcom has been rather nightmarish), and I stopped editing the gun control article last year with no plans to resume.  Other editors as well as myself have had continuing problems with Lightbreather at a related article Gun politics in the United States, so it would be especially odd for me but not Lightbreather to be an involved party.  Again, I point out that all the material in the US article that Lightbreather objects to was in the article before this case opened, so LB had ample time to raise this throughout the evidence phase.  Of course, ArbCom may do what it wants, but I'm not sure that I will be able to participate.


 * Incidentally I began editing the US gun politics article at the suggestion of yet another editor who is not an involved party in this case, so I urge you to make that other editor (User:FiachraByrne) an involved party to this case if you want to extend its scope by adding me and Lightbreather. I am not aware that the US gun politics article has recently been full-protected or even semi-protected, so I'm not sure there is any need for Arbcom to calm the waters there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per this, you'd better add Robert McClenon. Hipocrite (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Committee
Now that I (and not Lightbreather) have been added as an involved party, I have no idea what to do at this late stage of the proceedings. Unless ArbCom tells me otherwise, perhaps the appropriate thing would be to do nothing. User:Roger Davies said above that I have been "alluded to on case pages" and that I have "stuff" that I "may need to respond to". User:Seraphimblade, I don't see it, and (even if I did) I don't see how to respond. Therefore, please remove me as an involved party or explain what I'm supposed to do. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to get a reply from anyone at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's really up to you. If you see something pertinent to you, then you may wish to respond to that. You are, of course, welcome to offer your thoughts on any other matters as well, as you may wish to. It's really just a standard process if someone's name keeps coming up; it doesn't mean you've done something wrong or will be sanctioned in any way. Mainly, it's so that you don't get discussed without your knowledge. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Seraphimblade, as far as I can tell, my name didn't come up in any evidence but my own and Lightbreather's, nor did it come up in the workshop. Right?  Please tell me what I'm missing.  How could I possibly respond anyway, now that the evidence period has been closed and I have maxed my evidence limits?  As far as I know, you people only topic-ban involved parties, so I appreciate your concern but would rather not be one.  My evidence was not mainly for defending myself because I was not an involved party.  Had I known that I would be an involved party, I would have erased my evidence defending Gaijin42 and Justanonymous (to stay under 1000 words), and instead offered all my evidence in defense of myself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding evidence/diff limit: you can provide rebuttals on the Workshop page on the appropriate proposals should any need arise. You can always provide counter-arguments with new diffs (if not already supplied in original evidence) if necessary to do so. Regarding being named as involved party: generally speaking, anyone who performed important actions in areas related to the request can be considered involved; it does not imply there is any wrongdoing. For example, this case did not result in any actual bans/blocks/etc applied to any of the parties. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 07:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Penwhale, I realize that people designated as "Involved Parties" are often not sanctioned. What I'm saying is that people not designated as "Involved Parties" are rarely sanctioned, correct?  And I wasn't designated as "Involved" until long after evidence closed and I maxed my evidence limits.  If you look at the Workshop talk page, it's already pretty well been established by Seraphimblade that new evidence should not be submitted via the workshop if it involves stuff that happened before the evidence phase closed.  I would have defended myself much more extensively against Lightbreather's evidence had I known that it might get me sanctioned.  Sheesh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I strongly protest the way this proceeding is being conducted. It is no better than the previous proceeding where I protested in vain that evidence presented against me was presented after both I and the accuser had reached our evidence limits; the evidence was bullshit, I got no chance to rebut it, and I got topic-banned.  If you're going to constantly break your own rules, please just get rid of them (so that people like me are not stuck trying to rely on them and follow them).  You're feeding the perception that your primary goal is to indirectly affect article content, by bumping off whoever is in the way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you wish to post specific rebuttals on the /Evidence page,, you are welcome to do so. How much time do you need to do so?  Roger Davies  talk 13:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Although you've avoided saying so, presumably the material at the Evidence page that could get me sanctioned is the material presented by Lightbreather.  I suppose that 12 hours from now would be enough time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am working on this at my sandbox, but it is turning out to be quite time-consuming. I will keep working at it non-stop until it's done, but we may be looking at more like 15 or 20 hours instead of 12.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done within 12 hours after all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree strongly with Anythingyouwant, who I believe I have never, and possibly will never agree with again. No evidence regarding my conduct was submitted at any point, yet I am told I am a party to this case based either on someone who I am about to post workshop proposals about (welcome to the case, Robert!), or based on some penumbra or emmination. While I'm well aware that the committee is, has, and always will be a dysfunctional mess, this is beyond. Hipocrite (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not quite correct, . You are mentioned in evidence here. Please take the time to respond/rebut on the /Evidence page; I'll delay the closing of the /Workshop phase to enable you to do so. How much time do you need?  Roger Davies  talk 13:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's completely correct. No evidence is presented regarding my conduct in the section you reference. There is no need for me to respond to an allegation that I haven't edited in 6 months, and that my evidence is irrelvent. I do not need to respond to my statement that I might disagree with North800 about lots of things, and I do accuse him of being part of a tag-team, per evidence, and do not need an extension. Good bye. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this only me? In Hipocrite's defense, I followed the "here" link, Roger, and although North complained about him, he never actually presented any evidence against him. North and I have found a passable place to work from, but I have to say H. has a point here. Lightbreather (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

While not commenting on the appropriateness or not of people getting added after then evidence window, I do think it odd that Anythingyouwant was added to the case and Lightbreather has not. She has involved herself heavily into the gun control controversy, and specifically on the sub-topic of the Nazi argument content. She has deleted content from the US article (a place that even many of the "opposers" in the main Gun Control article say it would be appropriate)  and did so after making a fork proposal that came back resoundingly as oppose/wait-for-arbcom. Talk:Gun_politics_in_the_United_States, made an edit request on the GC page to have the content removed [] made a 3O request (even though it is quite obvious that more than 2 people have commented on this topic) [] and attempted to unilaterally declare that the dispute was only between herself and Anythingyouwant.User_talk:Gaijin42 She and  have been back and forth sniping at each other at ANI on the topic of Gun Control for quote a while now, and an IBAN between the two may be appropriate. (Sue is also a potential candidate to the case) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not much evidence was previously presented against Lightbreather because us dopes focussed on the purported subject of this proceeding: the article titled gun control, with which Lightbreather has had little to do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't relish the idea, but I don't mind being added to this process if the arbitrators consider it appropriate and necessary. My understanding is the scope of the complaint is to do with behaviors on the Gun control page, and specifically related to the debate surrounding whether or not Nazi gun control arguments ought to be included there. If that is the scope, here are my contributions, or non-contributions, if you will:
 * I became an active Wikipedia editor less one year ago. I have no history of any edits on the Gun control article, though I did suggest one during the current edit protection period - which was endorsed by Gaijin42 and Sue Rangell, and added.
 * My contributions to the Gun control talk page: A) First, 28 DEC 2013, I voted in the "Authoritarianism" (Nazi) RfC Survey, B) The previously mentioned edit suggestion,  C) A suggestion to fellow editors of something to read re: the Nazi material,  D) A notice to fellow editors that the Nazi material had appeared in the Gun politics in the U.S. article,  E) A comment in a discussion re: student-run journals,   F) A comment in a discussion about suicide/homicide statistics,   G) Starting a discussion called 3D printing citation overkill,  H) Notice of a discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page re: a suggestion to SPLIT Nazi material into separate article per WP:SPINOFF or WP:SUBPOV,  and I) Citing the 20-for, 30-againt RfC vote re: inclusion of Nazi material in the Gun control article, I started a discussion proposing removal of the material until ArbCom was over.
 * Before this Nazi gun control debate, my only other edit to do with Nazi material (that I remember, anyway) was this one in the Assault weapon article.
 * I shot up several flares on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page, and made several bold edits - one example here - all related to what I see as a larger editorial push to give Nazi gun control undue weight in these kinds of articles. (Gaijin replied to the edit just referenced with a threat.)
 * Re: Sue, our relationship probably affected the larger debate, but that's more about the relationship than the specifics of this complaint. I did recently get an admin to warn her about one thing she was doing that I'd asked her to stop - and it does seem to have stopped.
 * I don't think that our Wikipedia relationship (Lightbreather and I) is relevant to this conversation. We do not get along well, it is true, but within that we keep it professional, and I doubt if anyone would call our back-and-forth disruptive. We don't spew profanities at each other (as an example), and we both tend to back off if things get too hot. We even agree with each other as often as we don't, as we are both on the same side politically (pro-control). Anyway, I think the fact that we don't get along famously is irrelevant to the Nazi issue. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I'd rather be an "other" party here, but if the arbitrators consider it appropriate and necessary, I'll participate otherwise to the best of my ability. Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Im assuming you aren't admitting causing the larger debate, so you might want to switch effected for affected :) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gaijin. Could you provide links showing where "many 'opposers'" support putting the Gun control article Nazi material into the Gun politics in the U.S. article? Anything made a similar comment in the Split proposal discussion, but without DIFFs. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Below are a few (restricted to those generally opposed to the content in the GC article. Full consensus would of course include many others). Feel free to read through the several months of archived talk discussions if you want more. Generally not diffs, because its a pain to get links to diffs of months old content from archives

'Note :The diffs/comments below are not intended to be interpreted as !votes or support for any particular proposal, merely evidence that the arguments used on the Gun Control page may'' not necessarily apply the Gun politics in the United States article. Mainly it is just an answer to LightBreather's question above, and not intended as evidence or argument in the ongoing dispute. Some of the comments are more explicit in their opinion, others just have some possible implications behind them. I apoligize for any misrepresentation of the editor's comments.''' Gaijin42 (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * FiachraByrne
 * initial !vote in the RFC ". Also, Halbrook et al., and the general invocation of Nazism as a historical analogy for proposed US firearm regulation should be understood and contextualised as a relatively parochial debate with limited application outside of the US (some limited applicability in Brazil and Switzerland, perhaps). In most other countries it just doesn't have the same political saliency and is largely irrelevant to the question of gun control in these regions. It would seem to me, therefore, to be most appropriate for an article on the US gun control debate rather than anything else."
 * Talk:Gun_control/Archive_12 However, I think you could make an argument for its inclusion in an article devoted to, say, Gun politics in the United States, where, interestingly, it doesn't appear.
 * In my opinion, these are fine sources for aspects of the US internal debate.
 * Scolaire "I might add that the Nazi argument, as opposed to the Nazi policies themselves, is of relevance mainly to the post-1963 debate in the US, and not to "gun control" in Germany, contrary to what others have said on this page and elsewhere. "
 * Artifex's original source analysis subpage (now deleted) listed halbrook kates etc as "useful for the US gun politics article" (or some similar wording). (Ill note he dropped that wording when copying to the evidence page) (The comments in question were not in the version Artifex copied to evidence, but he helpfully has included them below)
 * Drmies in the split discussion you started.
 * Andy, continually arguing for exclusion from the GC article, because it is only relevant in the US
 * It doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, except possibly (neutrally presented, and with due weight) in a historical discussion of firearms regulation in Germany, and in an article on the U.S. 'gun control' debate
 * "since this article is supposed to be presenting an international perspective, rather than from the narrow perspective of the U.S. gun debate, to give any weight to such material - or to represent it as some sort of legitimate historical argument with any credibility - is a violation of core Wikipedia principles
 * "Have you taken leave of your senses? I have been arguing for months that this article (and all other non-nation-specific articles on firearms regulations) needs to present an international overview of the subject, rather than being dominated by the narrow discourse of the U.S. gun control debate."


 * I really would've preferred the DIFFs, and I imagine other critical readers would, too. What you've provided takes things out of context. Also, I can't see how finding material to put in the list above was easier than simply finding the DIFFs. However, I'll go look for them, as you suggest.
 * Also, since you've referred to their opinions specifically, I think users FiachraByrne, Scolaire, ArtifexMayhem, Drmies, and AndyTheGrump should be made aware of this discussion - so I'm including them with this post. Lightbreather (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Having found a quote in an archive, there is no simple way to get a link to the diff of that text, other than reading through the many thousands entry history page and finding the right time. I did enough of that while finding diffs for evidence. It would be most wonderful if the signature of a post linked to the diff of that post, but it does not. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Posts are often tweaked, so there is often not a unique diff. But it would indeed be wonderful if the signature of a post linked to the relevant page of the edit history.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Aren't tweaks supposed to be underscored, as I just did on mine, above? Lightbreather (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It usually depends upon whether anyone has responded yet. If there's been a response, then it's usually best not to make any changes at all (or only very minor ones).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any guideline/widely accepted practice for that, but people often do bold or underline changes - but I typically only do that for minor changes. For something like what you just did (a significant add of content), I personally usually do a self reply with its own signature, or add an [ed:] marker for clarity. I would like you to clarify your post further however since the "threat" that you are referring to is merely bringing up the issue here. (also underlining it seems to be bringing undue emphasis to the concept of threat).  (Also, I would not say that that was in response to any particular post, but the totality of actions you had taken with the split proposal, 3O, content deletion, etc.) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I usually manage to find a diff, however long and invoved the discussion, by (a) copying the date and time stamp, (b) correcting it for UTC, (c) setting the revision history to 500 edits and (d) using Ctrl-F followed by Ctrl-V to home in on the edit. That's how I found my own post, quoted above. In relation to that, I want to say that I did not say that it would be appropriate for the Gun politics in the United States article, and I did not give Gaijin leave to interpret my post in that way. Scolaire (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not said that I "support putting the Gun control article Nazi material into the Gun politics in the U.S. article", nor am I one of the "opposers" that "say it would be appropriate." Differences in wording are only "some similar wording" if both versions convey the author's original intent (e.g., "might be useful" and "useful" are totally different in intent).


 * Symbol oppose vote.svg Harcourt, Bernard E.Julius Kreeger Professor of Law and Criminology, and Chair of the Political Science Department, University of Chicago Law School.Ph.D., Political Science (Harvard, 2000); J.D. (Harvard Law, 1989); A.B., Politics (Princeton, 1984).
 * Harcourt is not an authority on the history of German gun laws, the Holocaust, or gun control in general.
 * Ref 39 : Harcourt 2004. On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians), p. 671.
 * This non-peer reviewed law review article It is of little if any value in this article, and certainly not in a section about Nazi laws regarding ownership of arms.


 * Symbol oppose vote.svg Halbrook, Stephen P.Attorney at Law, Civil Litigation and Criminal Defense.Ph.D., Philosophy (FSU, 1972); J.D., (Georgetown Law, 1978); B.S., Business (FSU, 1969).
 * Halbrook is a reliable sources for his own opinions on Gun politics in the United States, and on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. He is not remotely qualified to do original research gun control in Germany using primary sources. He is a lawyer that has represented the National Rifle Association on several occasions and not a reliable, third-party, source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. He is not a recognized scholar in the field, and use of his opinions here would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. There is no reason to cite him for the few facts he does get right—we have qualified scholars for the facts.
 * Ref 41 : Halbrook 2000. Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews, p. 509-513.
 * Same as Harcourt above, Halbrook's non-peer reviewed law review article It is of little if any value in this article, and certainly not in a section about Nazi laws regarding ownership of arms.


 * Symbol oppose vote.svg Polsby, Daniel D.Dean, and Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason School of Law.J.D., (Minnesota Law, 1971); B.A., (Oakland, 1964).
 * Symbol oppose vote.svg Kates, Don B.Associate with the firms Trutanich & Michel and the Law Offices of Donald Kilmer.J.D., (Yale Law, 1966); B.A., (Reed College).
 * Polsby and Kates, like Halbrook above, are a reliable sources for their own opinions on Gun politics in the United States, and on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. They are not recognized experts on the topic of gun control in general.
 * Ref 45 : Polsby & Kates 1997. Of Holocausts and Gun Control, p. 1237.
 * Same as Harcourt and Halbrook above, their non-peer reviewed law review article It is of little if any value in this article, and certainly not in a section about Nazi laws regarding ownership of arms.


 * Symbol support vote.svg Bryant, Michael S.Adjunct Professor of Law, Creighton Law; Associate Professor of History and Law, Bryant.Ph.D., Modern European History (OSU, 2001); M.A., Modern European History, (OSU, 1996); J.D., (Emory Law, 1989); M.T.S., Theology, (Emory, 1989); B.A., English Literature (OSU, 1985).
 * Bryant as all the right credentials, and an authority on the Holocaust, its history, and related German laws.
 * Yes check.svg Ref 46 : Bryant 2012a. Germany, Gun Laws, p. 314-316.
 * An excellent summary of German gun laws from 1914 to the present day.
 * Bryant 2012b. Holocaust Imagery and Gun Control, p. 411-414.
 * Not a useful source for this article, but


 * I modified the text before posting it as evidence because the original was created two weeks before you filed this case, was intended for discussion on the article talk page, and contained commentary that I didn't think was germane to the arbitration. ( Your insinuation that I modified the text for partisan purposes is noted. retracted per ) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added a comment to my collapsed section to clarify the intent of the quotes above. Thanks for copying your original comments from your sandbox to this page, its quite helpful. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Iterating comments from a prior case by reference
My position as given in a prior case are in full force here -- adding people after the evidence and workshop phases are ended is, IMO, improper and likely to result in decisions being made for "convenience" and to "cut the Gordian knot" and not based on the remit given by the community in its specific instructions to the committee. it doesn't mean you've done something wrong or will be sanctioned in any way. is pretty much absurd where a person has not been "mentioned" in the evidence or workshop phases in the first place. you can provide rebuttals on the Workshop page  is meaningless since I asked arb candidates about whether it was proper to "ignore the workshop pages" and at least one felt that it was entirely proper to ignore anything they wanted to ignore. ( I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case  is a direct quote from an arbitrator in a past case)  And I would note that in one case, a newly added person was warned not to object else they would be summarily blocked. Perhaps the time has come for the committee to reread exactly what the policy from the community states, and not to follow the precepts of tiptibism. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

At least this time, the committee is actually allowing the accused to present evidence . One improvement, at least. Collect (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! Is the Gun control article meant to be unlocked now?
Is the Gun control article meant to be unlocked now? Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Toddst1 protected it until the 4th, but that was prior to the arbcom being opened. It may be wise for someone to continue the protection, but the locking was not a result of the arbcom. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=protect&page=Gun_control Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Remembering first and foremost that I am a WikiOtter, I think it would reflect very well on some involved parties who want to keep the disputed Nazi material to remove it for now, while this ArbCom is on-going. Also, there otter be an emoticon for a post meant to break a tense mood a little bit. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This case has proven yet again to me...
That disengaging early is the best move possible. This is like the third or fourth subject I have been involved with where it became obvious to me to let go and walk away, only to come back later and see that sanctions have been imposed on many editors that were involved. I wish more editors would see the benefit in doing that.

Thanks to arb com for what I see as a good call all around. I am not always pleased with arb com's decisions but I am also a tad uptight. ;-) I learn much quicker than I thought.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This was a tough one, but I agree, arbcom came to a good decision. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification (May 2014)
Initiated by  Lightbreather (talk) at 15:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control

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

Gaijin42 and Scalhotrod notified here and here.

Statement by Lightbreather
Yesterday, Scalhotrod removed a "See also" link three times from the Gun politics in the U.S. article, as documented here:, (scroll down), and. Rather than then make a fourth revert, he unilaterally moved/renamed the article, as documented here: (I reverted it and asked him to talk about it first, but he moved/renamed it again.)

Within hours of these edits, this discussion was posted on Scal's talk page by Gaijin42. I don't know what the Wiki-term is for this, but it seems like coaching to me. It's not specifically about gun control, but it's related to material Scal had been warring with me over off-and-on for five days. Is this kind of behavior OK?


 * @Beeblebrox @Seraphimblade @Salvio_giuliano et al. - I took this off my watch list earlier but just now realized that Scalhotrod has started making comments about my behavior here. Should I be responding to these? Because, of course, there are at least two sides to every story and I will defend myself if this is the place to do it. Else, could you ask him to please stop commenting about my behavior in inappropriate places? I'd honestly prefer that he start something specifically about me if he has a beef with me and my edits in general. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I third Salvio's and Andy's suggestions to reconsider Gaijin's ban. Lightbreather (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I asked Scal if he would redact his accusations about me, and his answer makes me wonder 1. Is it poor form to make such a request? and 2. Is it OK to redact something one says in an ArbCom discussion?


 * Also, FWIW, I'm noticing more IP edits on gun-control related pages in recent days - especially today. Lightbreather (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42
I provided a direct quote to a policy/guideline. Something I do for many users, including Lightbreather, for which she has specifically thanked me for. including her mentioning my helping her with policy multiple times during the ArbCom case. In this case, I did not edit any page or talk page of gun control, and did not discus any edits, arguments, or editors involved.

I had planned on asking for a clarification of the topic ban myself, but was going to wait for things to calm down first User:Gaijin42/GunControlArbClarification Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Gaijin asked for the following to be copied to this page:
 * "I asked for clarification of the ban just above. That request had a specific reference to the SYG article. The edits were not "boundary testing". They were made in good faith that either the ban did not apply (because SYG is not a law that in any way addresses "governmental regulation of firearm ownership"), or that if it did WP:BANEX would apply as the content removed was both a copyvio  and a BLP violation (WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME) to  if the scope of the ban is anything related to guns, including second or third order effects, please clarify the scope for me, like I have asked for multiple times. A ban on "guns" is much broader than "gun control" and if that is the way it is interpreted, I am particularly concerned that the "people and organizations associated with" bit is effectively a ban on all governments and politicians. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)"


 * (Iselilja (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC))

Statement by
(edit conflict with above)

I found the move frustrating, because it was clearly the type of edit that people would like to discuss first. But there was no discussion and it seemed to be a somewhat heated move that was directly in response. I admit my knee jerk reaction was to move the article back and start a discussion but I found I lack privileges to move over redirects. In hind sight that probably saved me from a heated edit. But the unlevel playing field also adds to the frustration. But I too find the coaching (or appearance thereof) concerning. Thenub314 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Malke 2010
Agree completely with Beeblebrox's comment. , a lot of admins came to your defense and asked that you not be site-banned. I also supported you. It's disappointing that you are persisting with this. My best advice is for you to take everything associated with this topic off your watchlist. Find some other topic area on Wikipedia and start improving that area. Getting involved with something else will make a difference.

Statement by
The following edits were made after five arbiters here advised the editor not to test the limits their topic ban, I am at a loss to understand how the editor could possibly think that editing the Stand-your-ground law article would not be a gross violation of their topic ban. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 00:40, 8 May 2014
 * 00:41, 8 May 2014
 * 00:43, 8 May 2014

Statement by Callanecc
I have blocked Gaijin42 for two days for breaching the topic ban with these edits which blatantly relate to the interaction of gun control and the stand-your-ground law. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

After discussing it further with Gaijin42 on their talk page (which is worthwhile reading for the arbs as it explains Gaijin42's confusion), just clarifying that the block was based on the first edit to stand-your-ground law. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump
I note that most of the comments in the 'Arbitrator views and discussion' section pre-date the above statement by Callanecc concerning a further clear violation of the topic ban. Accordingly, I ask that those ArbCom members who have not yet done so reconsider their position, in the light of this evidence. It seems to me self-evident that #Gaijin42 is unwilling to comply with the topic ban (the edit being clearly within "the social, historical and political context of [firearms] regulation") and accordingly must face the sanctions that were made clear to him when it was imposed - namely, that he be indefinitely site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia. His assertion that he was asking for the scope of the topic ban to be clarified prior to making the edit can hardly justify his actions - if he didn't understand the scope, the onus was clearly on him to get clarification first, not to make an edit, in the hope that it was out-of-scope. This was not the action of a person acting in good faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @Scalhotrod: "tangentially gun related as best"? Really? The edit in question involved the word "shot" five times, along with "shooting", "bullet wounds", ""threatened... with a gun" and ""licensed to carry a gun". That doesn't look 'tangential' to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @Scalhotrod: I have no idea what you are trying to prove by linking diffs to Gaijin's edits. I have clearly already seen them, since I have pointed out the gun-related content in my above post.


 * Regarding WP:BANEX, I could see the merit in Gaijin's claim that WP:BLP was being violated - but that wasn't what he said in the edit summary. Instead he made vague statements about 'vandalism' (which is clearly not relevant if one takes Wikipedia's understanding of the term) or a 'hoax'. Given that he knew that any gun-related editing was going to be contentious until the scope of the topic ban was clarified, the onus was surely on him to make it entirely clear that he was citing WP:BANEX to justify his edit. It should also be noted that Gaijin made further edits to the article, where WP:BLP was irrelevant - in an article that discusses firearms, and laws relating to their legitimate use. An article which Gaijin had explicitly mentioned in his request for clarification over the scope of the topic ban: as he himself wrote, the subject is 'often associated with gun rights/gun control, so may be covered by the "social context" clause'.  Common sense says that having asked for clarification, and having explained why he thought that the article might be in scope, to carry on editing it anyway might result in sanctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by
I have several comments to make about this issue. First, this "clarification request" is in my opinion the result of WP:Wikihounding by User Lightbreather as indicated by her comment here. Second, I personally fail to see how an article related to self-defense is anything but tangentially gun related as best. The last way I would characterize Gaijin's actual edits to this article as a "gross violation" of his topic ban (see list above). I disagree with the Andy's extremely broad application of the banned subject. The article in question is far more about legal and civil rights issues than "guns". Gaijin has asked repeatedly for this exact clarification. Third, the accuser (Lightbreather) in this case has begun to openly allude to her bias or viewpoint towards gun related articles and the associated editors here and here. In the absence of the topic blocked editors, this User gone on what I would describe as a "gun related article binge" that is leading myself and others to question the neutrality of the edits. This has been observed by one User here along with an outright accusation of WP:OWNERSHIP activity here. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @AndyTheGrump, reply


 * 00:40, 8 May 2014, edit summary "unsourced, possibly vandalism/hoax additions", removal of a completely unsourced section titled "Questionable cases" that appears to be copyright vio content from here
 * 00:41, 8 May 2014, edit summary "citation needed", tag added, nothing to do with "guns" in the content
 * 00:43, 8 May 2014, edit summary "already discussed in first sentence of this paragraph. This statistic is limited to one study in florida, not represented correctly", again - nothing to do with guns

So if I understand this process correctly, the offense comes down to this edit:
 * 00:40, 8 May 2014

...which initially broke the topic ban and subsequent edits were just "fuel for the fire". The evaluation of the offense is because more often than not, the occurrence or application of a self-defense law like Stand Your Ground (I assume attributed to the article sources) involves a firearm and that is why the block was assigned. Is this a fair and accurate assessment?

I'm not trying to be flippant and please do not read any sarcastic tone into my comment and question. I would like to earn Admin status someday and I sincerely wish to understand how these proceedings function. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It is obvious front he way that Gaijin's staement on the talk page was framed that he was aware he was skirting the edges of the TBAN. This is unfortunately all too common in the first weeks of such a ban and our reply in the first instance is generally to inform the user that if we see further testing of the limits of the ban it may become a siteban. Gaijin's cute little explanation here is as transparent as the ham-handed phrasing of the original post.
 * Gaijin, you are topic banned from this area. What this means is that the committee has determined that the project would be better off without your involvement in this one area, but that you are valued as an editor otherwise. So, I strongly suggest you simply take any page even remotely related to gun control off your watchlist and just leave it alone. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You wanted clarification, I hope the block clarifies things for you. This is where the phrase "broadly construed" comes into play. I don't think any of us believe that you honestly had no inclination that "stand your ground" could reasonably be interpreted as relating to gun control. Here's a simple test you can apply in the future: If you find yourself wondering if an edit might violate your topic ban, assume it does and don't make the edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Essentially what Beeblebrox said. A topic ban means to stay entirely away from the area, not to stand on its sidelines and shout suggestions to other editors involved. It is clear that Gaijin42's message was posted in response to an ongoing debate in the area covered by the topic ban. If this type of behavior continues, I expect blocks at AE or further consideration here will be the result. Being banned from participation in the area does not mean to find clever ways to remain involved and pretend not to be, it means to stay well clear. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Salvio. "Stand your ground" is a legal regulation which in the vast majority of its invocations covers the use of a firearm. Many of the laws even mention various points about firearms specifically. It is, as such, clearly and unambiguously covered by the topic ban, yet Gaijin42 edited there right after being cautioned that further boundary testing would be met harshly. (I don't consider SYG to even be on the boundary, it fits the wording of the topic ban very closely indeed). I'm very strongly considering whether we need additional action here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're done here. I would reiterate that Gaijin42 should stay far away from the boundary of the sanction, or at very least ask about any questionable cases and wait for an answer before beginning to edit. Trying to nibble at the edges of a topic ban by finely parsing the language is not the idea of such a sanction, and it's why it's "broadly construed". Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with my learned colleagues. Gaijin, further instances of boundary testing will probably lead to sanctions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that a two-day block for Gaijin's most recent violation of his topic ban is much too lenient. The restriction in question was imposed as a last chance. In the week following the closing of the case, Gaijin first tested the boundaries of his sanctions, was warned in no uncertain terms that further instances of such conduct would not be tolerated and what did he do? Befire this request was even archived, he blatantly violated his topic ban again. In my opinion, a much harsher sanction is needed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The two-day block was lenient, but I think we should let AE handle any further problems. AGK  [•] 11:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed with all three above. Decline. AGK  [•] 11:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with my colleagues. T. Canens (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reiterating the warning and suggestion to remove gun-related articles from your watchlist, and declining the request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No action needed. Re Salvio giuliano's point, your history is correct, but I don't think we need to do anything further, as much harsher sanctions will follow inevitably in the event of any further violations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this request can be closed and archived. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for amendment (May 2014)
Original Request

Initiated by  Lightbreather (talk) at 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 10


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

N/A
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request


 * Information about amendment request


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control: Purpose of Wikipedia; Making allegations against other editors; Battleground conduct; Seeking commpunity input.
 * Amendment request: Semi-protection of gun-control related articles to prevent edits by unregistered users.

Statement by Lightbreather
In the past week I have been attacked and harassed by two IP address users who have been blocked: and another one appears to be started up:
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive840
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive840.
 * User_talk:Lightbreather.

The purpose, I believe is to try to bait me and/or discourage me from editing. This could be a problem for other editors of gun-control related pages, too - pro-gun or gun-control. This could cut down on trips to admin boards. I've never requested an AR amendment before, and I am not working on my computer, so please forgive me if I mess it up. Lightbreather (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Semiprotection is one available discretionary sanction available for areas covered by DS. It would be my recommendation that such a request go through the standard arbitration enforcement process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The only time I can recall the Arbitration Committee directing that articles be semiprotected (the Abortion case) involved years of problematic editing by IPs in that area. Absent something like that, protection requests should probably continue to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, whether at AE or RFPP or by admins directly monitoring the subject articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline. AGK  [•] 20:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What Brad said. AE or RFPP can handle this, it doesn't require an amendment. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, AE. I think this is more or less resolved. NativeForeigner Talk 11:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification (July 2014)
Original Request

Initiated by  Gaijin42 (talk) at 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control

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

Statement by Gaijin42
I am currently topic banned from Gun control per the ArbCom case above. Recently there has been two cases brought at ArbEnforcement resulting in two additional topic bans and warnings (including a boomerang topic ban for the filing party). During these cases I was explicitly mentioned at least twice, and implicitly mentioned several more. (As well as mentioning other affected users in the same boat as myself) (snips below). I did not comment due to my topic ban. However, it seems poor form to be discussing the actions and statements of those who cannot reply or clarify. For the current two cases, one is already closed, and the other appears that it will close shortly but in the future if a similar situation comes up, are topic banned editors allowed to reply on administrative boards where they are being discussed? I had asked some of the administrators at AE about this and replied that they could not grant an exception to the TB since it was applied by ArbCom.


 * "Removing the entire Background section and Legal challenges sections I added (which even now topic-banned Gaijin42 did not dispute) to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban page."
 * "The third link [30] is to a nearly 8-month-old ANI that nearly boomeranged [31] on the editor who brought it against me. (It is also another example of pro-gun editors - three of whom are now topic banned - talking about my behavior, without diffs.)"
 * "Perhaps one of the topic-banned pro-gun editors is harassing me." (An accusation, without evidence, against people who can't respond)
 * "My frustration right now reminds me of that I felt when I was a new editor to gun-control and in a "discussion" with about 10-12 experienced editors using jargon I'd never heard and referring to processes I knew nothing about."
 * " And the 1 (Gaijin42) who voted "complicated," and mentorship-else-ban is topic banned for Battleground conduct. Is it possible that I (1 new editor against numerous experienced) was the victim of battleground conduct at the article I brought up at ANI?"

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Question to commenting arbs/admins Thank you for your comments below. As there seems to be some situations in which a statement would be acceptable, and others in which it would be a ban violation, and the delimiter is somewhat vague, could you perhaps clarify if you think it would have been acceptable for me to comment in response to the statements I posted? (Obviously there are things that I could say that would be "too far/too much" but the crucial bit is would ANY comment have been so construed?) (Perhaps to use the terminology below, was I being discussed, or just mentioned? In particular the accusation that one of the topic banned editors was harassing LB is of interest) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
In my opinion as one of the admins active at WP:AE, the policy-level exceptions to topic bans described at WP:BANEX also apply to Committee-imposed topic bans. Therefore, a topic-banned user may make such statements as are required for "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". In the context of enforcement requests, this means that they may briefly respond to direct accusations of misconduct against themselves, especially as concerns allegations of topic ban violations. However, in view of the purpose of a topic ban, they should be as brief as possible, or they risk being blocked if an administrator decides that the seventh reply in an angry back-and-forth of mutual recriminations is no longer part of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

Also, in order to help topic-banned editors respect their topic bans, administrators should suppress and, if needed, sanction allegations of misconduct against topic-banned editors if these allegations are not supported by useful evidence in the form of diffs (see WP:ASPERSIONS), or if the allegations are not helpful for resolving the problem at hand. This may often be the case because the topic ban will have made the allegations moot.  Sandstein  15:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * 's analysis is about right. Unless explicitly prohibited from doing so by the specific applicable t-ban, t-banned editors may respond briefly and circumspectly in DR fora to accusations directly concerning them. Indeed, doing so will often assist the process. They may not however use the door that has been partially opened to launch into sweeping and tangential counter-accusations against all and sundry. That said, there's probably not much more to add here.  Roger Davies  talk 07:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree in part; if an editor has been banned from a topic area, it means that his participation there has been so disruptive that it has been deemed necessary to expel him from it. The necessary conclusion is that all exceptions to limited bans need to be construed restrictively. For that, I interpret the "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" exception to only apply when an editor's actions are being discussed and not when they are merely mentioned. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Salvio's analysis generally matches mine. Merely being mentioned should not allow for discussion, but it the editor is being actively discussed, I would expect them to be able to comment. Worm TT( talk ) 09:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also largely agree with Salvio, and I think the discussion would need to be substantive, not just a mention in passing. I would add, however, that there would seldom be a good reason for other editors to bring a topic-banned user up in such a discussion, and it should generally be discouraged unless there really is good cause. A topic ban is not an excuse for other editors to take gratuitous jabs at someone while they're restricted from answering in return. (Not saying that happened in this case, mind, that's just a general statement of principle.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with the comments above; discretion should be applied by all parties that editors who are banned from a discussion are not disparaged or brought up needlessly; editors, even t-banned ones, have an option to respond towards direct discussions involving them, but it's not the place to rehash disputes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio. Mention of a user does not necessitate reply, but topic-banned users who are being actively discussed should be allowed to respond. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, I do not think it would ever be acceptable for you to offer a statement in a discussion you are not the subject of. Please remain completely away from this topic area unless actions you have made are being discussed in an enforcement venue.  AGK  [•] 23:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification (November 2014)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Gaijin42 (talk) at 17:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control
 * Link to relevant decision

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

Statement by Gaijin42
During the GC case I was topic banned from Gun Control. I am currently involved in editing King v. Burwell an upcoming supreme court case regarding Obamacare. One of the issues in the case is Commandeering (The limitations on the Federal government being able to force states to implement policies/laws). The Commandeering doctrine was most recently decided and expanded upon in Printz v. United States a SCOTUS gun control case dealing with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

The Commandeering article is currently very stubby, I would like to expand it, but doing so will likely require discussing/referencing Printz. Note that the concept of commandeering itself is not related to gun control, merely the most recent major SCOTUS discussion of commandeering happened to be in a gun control case. I can avoid discussing the direct gun control issues, but this still seems on the edge of my ban.

I would like to ask for clarification on where the line of my ban is drawn, and if referencing the generic precedents set in Printz is a violation of my ban. If I were to expand the Commandeering article, would citing/quoting Printz be a violation.

Clarifying Note : Due to the appeal restrictions placed on the case, I am ONLY asking for clarification, and not asking for a modification of the ban. (because I'm still within the initial 12 month "no appeal" period, and in any case do not want to risk resetting my clock) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control


 * I appreciate the opinions of the arbs. My (obviously self-interested) position was that it wasn't really a grey area, just a technicality, because the subject of commandeering is not really about gun control. An analogous situation would be someone who is topic banned from rape not being able to edit on the Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution or Miranda warning because Miranda_v._Arizona happened to be about a rape conviction. As to Roger's specific question, I obviously would not have a basis for accusing anyone of violating their ban, since doing so would be a violation of my own ban, but joking aside, no I don't think such an accusation would have merit, and such construction makes topic bans exceptionally broad. Especially in an area regarding law and government the interactions and tendrils between entities and events is immense. If commandeering is a grey area/violation, conceivably any interaction with any aspect of the government would be. Are the entirety of articles such as  Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Diane Feinstein BLPs or the entire United States Congress  and United States Constitution also off limits? They certainly  fall into "the people and organizations associated with these issues" per the ban.

However, in the interest of staying in good graces (or at least not getting in worse graces) I will probably avoid as advised, but would appreciate a further answer/comment as to the broadness of bans in general per my question just above. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump
I should probably make it clear that I was heavily involved in the ArbCom case that led to Gaijin42's topic ban, and my comments should perhaps be seen in that light, but I have to suggest that Gaijin42 has answered his own question - Printz v. United States clearly and unambiguously involves gun control issues, and if expansion of the Commandeering article requires citing Printz v. United States, I cannot see how he could make such a citation without violating the ban. One does not (or should not) merely cite things in articles, one cites them for a reason, and I cannot see how Printz v. United States could appropriately be cited without at least informing the readers what the case was about - the constitutionality or otherwise of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Gun control: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'd steer clear, if only to make sure no issues arise. It may be possible to edit it whilst staying clear, but I do not advise trying it. NativeForeigner Talk 05:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest steering clear too. A reasonable test for you is asking whether, if a topic-banned opponent in the gun control area, were to edit the same article you are thinking of editing, would you feel like you'd have a solid basis for accusing them of violating the topic ban? If so, avoid making the edit. (With grateful thanks to Alanyst for articulating so clearly the advice on which my comment here is based.)  Roger Davies  talk 16:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with my colleagues above. We generally craft remedies broadly to avoid these sorts of grey areas where it can be argued bias is still possible; Roger's flipping exercise is the standard I usually hold as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposed edit would violate the topic ban. It is good that you asked. If you are in doubt in the future, do please ask again, though it should be clearer now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's best to err on the side of caution, particularly when the topic ban in question is of the "broadly construed" variety. Staying away is wise here, although I agree with NativeForeigner that it's probably possible for you to edit it without breaching the ban. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for amendment (October 2015)
Original discussion

Initiated by Gaijin42 at 20:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control


 * 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/Gun_control
 * Lifted/loosened

Statement by Gaijin42
It is now 10 years, 63 days since my topic ban in gun control was applied , 10 years, 55 days since the change I made which was found to violate the topic ban. Further it is 10 years, 179 days since the most recent of the diffs used in the findings against me in the case, and most of the diffs were 7 months prior to that. 

First the mea culpa : While I believe that the opinions of Halbrook and others constitute a valid "notable minority viewpoint" under WP:NPOV and WP:RS sufficient to receive minor coverage in mainstream articles I acknowledge that
 * there is not (and was not) consensus for inclusion of these viewpoints in mainstream articles,
 * and that I failed to recognize and abide by that lack of consensus,
 * and that during that time I did contribute to a battleground with edit warring, incivility, and the other findings in the case.

On the behaviors : In the time since my ban was imposed, I feel I have otherwise been a productive member of the community, and have not had any sanctions or blocks applied (with the exception of the early topic ban violation mentioned above). (1 warning for incivility which was later rescinded by Callanec User_talk:Gaijin42/Archive_2) During this time I have been involved in several controversial/hot areas a number of which are under DS (ARBPIA, BLPs, ARBAPDS) and have been able to engage with editors of all persuasions without significant issues. I have taken particular care to not engage in warring, and engage with those on the other side of disputes with me, working to build a collaborative environment that conforms with wiki policy. I believe I have shown I can act appropriately in hot-button areas and that I deserve a second chance in the gun control area.

On the topic area itself : if my topic ban is lifted I will abide the consensus described above. Further, I will not initiate any actions to try and change that consensus (No new RFCs, WP:BOLD changes etc) in mainstream articles. Even if the ban is fully lifted, I  have no immediate plans to edit to that effect in the "nexus" areas where the topic is already discussed, such as  Nazi gun control theory or Gun_Control_in_the_Third_Reich_(book).

If the committee feel it is not appropriate/timely to completely lift the topic ban, possible stepping stones would be some sort of probation, mentorship, 1rr, or to narrow the topic ban to the Nazi gun control theory topic itself. If that path is taken I request that the ban be more narrowly construed, as "broadly construed" would cover the NRA, and Stephen Halbrook, etc which are central to the wider topic of Gun Control. (Although obviously any edits dealing directly with the narrow topic area would still be verboten) (Halbrook for instance has been significantly involved in all of the recent SCOTUS gun control cases, and many of the lower court cases, including District_of_Columbia_v._Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, Printz v. United States etc). See also my 3rd point below about "broadly construed" and american politics.

In regards to why I am making this appeal, First of all I feel that I can be a valuable member of the community in the broader GC topic area, and would like to resume editing there. A few of the things that I would edit off hand are :


 * Peruta v. San Diego (decided in February 2014) (along with several other cases with results for both the pro and anti side) are not covered at all in Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 * Other SCOTUS decisions not covered http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/05/opinion-analysis-an-equitable-result-in-henderson-v-united-states/#more-228263 (not to be confused with our article on Henderson v. United States which is a different case with the same name
 * I was previously quite active in the gun-involved current events articles such as Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Shooting of Jordan Davis, Marissa Alexander case, Byron David Smith killings and would like to participate in future similar articles. As an example of how I can contribute positively in this area, during the ban I have been significantly involved in the Shooting of Michael Brown Shooting of Walter Scott Death of Freddie Gray which all involved uniformed on-duty police officer so did not involve gun control implications, but otherwise has a lot in common with the gun control implicated articles.

Secondly, I would like to be returned to general full standing in the community. As a specific example, I have had fairly significant involvement in SPI with a good track record of identifying socks I run across. I made an application to become an SPI Clerk but was declined with both  and  mentioning  this sanction being a reason for declining. If in the future I were to apply for this, or other permissions/roles, I would like to have this not hanging over my head any longer.

Thirdly, One of my main areas of interest in editing is politics, legal issues and court cases in general. Due to the way the legal and political system works gun control topics often interact with non gun control topics (and visa versa), similarly notable judges,lawyers, and politicians are involved in cases across the spectrum, and therefore the ban interferes with editing far outside the gun control topic area. One specific example : the clarification request I made in November 2014 Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control the ban made working on an Obamacare article more complicated and working on the Commandeering article virtually impossible. Also, as election season heats up, gun control is again a major topic for many candidates, and the "broadly construed" bit starts risking being an "american politics" topic ban (particularly in light of how the Commandeering clarification went.

Two clarifications, by "normal arbitration appeals process" do you mean this process we are doing right now? Or appeals directly to the admin/AE/AN for DS type actions? Also, regarding the 1 year lift, is that automatic, or do I need to come back here for confirmation in a year? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

pinging you in particular since you had commented already, consider this a friendly nudge to you and your cohorts :) (Some delay is understandable, with all the kumioko drama and other events aroudn the wiki, but this seems like an easy one to cross off the honey-do list!) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cwobeel
I was not aware of this ban, but despite being almost always in opposing ends of content disputes with, I have found him to be very mindful of respecting policy and engaging civilly and respectfully in dispute resolution. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:16, 5 October 2015 (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.

Gun control (Gaijin42): Clerk notes

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



Gun control (Gaijin42): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My initial thinking is that a trial suspension of the topic ban would be acceptable. I'm not in favour of a narrowed-scope tban, which could easily descend into wikilawering, but I believe I'd be content to suspend the ban for six months and then repeal it if no issues crop up during that period. This is not a vote to accept at the moment, but I'm definitely leaning that way. Awaiting further comments before making a firm decision. Yunshui 雲 水 07:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The appeals process would be that laid out at Banning_policy. Once the suspension expires (assuming the ban is not reinstated) so would the topic ban, though you might need to remind someone to update Editing_restrictions at the time. Yunshui 雲 水 14:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The usual suspension is a year (and given the contentiousness of the area, I'd probably more favor that), but I'd certainly be willing to consider doing that. I'd like to get some more comments before we consider if we should put up a motion, though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have limited time available for arbitration matters at the moment and no initial opinion about this either way, so please consider me inactive on this request. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would allow this request (initially on a probationary basis, as my colleagues suggest). AGK  [•] 23:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Allow, initially on a probationary basis. Doug Weller (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Gaijin42 topic ban suspension
's topic ban from gun control-related edits imposed as Remedy 4 of the Gun control case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Gaijin42 fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.



Enacted -  Mini  apolis  01:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Since there's some support for this, let's turn it into a proper motion. Yunshui 雲 水  09:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Doug Weller (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Not without some mild reservation, but worth seeing what happens. Courcelles (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  AGK  [•] 09:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Worth trying.  DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain
 * 1) Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Recuse

Comments

Clarification request: Gun control (April 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Cinteotl at 19:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration enforcement ruling
 * Arbitration enforcement ruling

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


 * 12:15 09 April 2018

Statement by Cinteotl
In this AE case, I provided multiple cites to objectively tendentious editing, where Niteshift36 ignored my reasonable requests to provide sources for material he wanted to include in the article. He did not dispute any of this in his AE statement. The AE was closed with the notation "no violation," Which I don't believe is consistent with the evidence. I'm asking for a clarification of the finding, Specifically, I'm looking for answers to the following:


 * Was Niteshift36 responsible for sourcing content he sought to include in article?
 * Were my multiple requests that Niteshift36 cite sources for content he sought to include in the article "good faith questions?"
 * Did Niteshift36 repeatedly ignore or refuse to answer my questions?
 * In repeatedly disregarding requests to cite sources a violation of WP editing or other policies?

If the answer to any of these is "no," please explain.

This is not an appeal. It is a request for clarification. If this is not the proper venue for clarification, please point me to the proper venue. Cinteotl (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

In response to Kevin: I just found the procedure you mentioned, about an hour or two ago. I will contact the enforcing admin. I've also requested on the Clerk's message board that this matter be closed. Thank you. Cinteotl (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Niteshift36
This is starting to look like harassment. Even an editor that I quite often disagree with in terms of content didn't see a violation. Since this is not a discussion of the content, there's really little for me to contribute. The complainant apparently has questions for the closer, not me. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, saying that I didn't dispute his claim of tendentious editing is incorrect. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lord Roem
Agree with Newyorkbrad below, don't think this is worth the Committee's attention. AE request presented limited evidence, none of which was actionable, and the two other admins who opined before I closed the thread felt the same way. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2018 (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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Niteshift36.: Clerk notes

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


 * I'm going to edit the formatting of this request. However, quick procedural note that the Committee's procedures indicate: "any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal [of an AE report] to the Arbitration Committee at "ARCA"" (emphasis added)., can you clarify whether there was discussion with the administrator declining to impose sanctions ? Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 23:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Recuse --Kostas20142 (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Niteshift36.: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I don't think we've ever accepted an appeal from an AE finding of "no violation," and this request is not the time to start. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Cinteotl, you state that you are seeking clarification. What I find clear is that aspects of your position are obtuse, that your hectoring style of questioning is objectionable, and that your questions above do not warrant further attention. In a prior arbitration case involving your editing in an unrelated topic-area, you were found to have "cast aspersions and made disruptive accusations of POV editing and vandalism without evidence or backing of policy," and were "warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors." Please be sure you aren't heading again down that same path. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum, and not actionable. You're not seeking a clarification of the Arbcom decision, you're seeking a rerun of an AE outcome you didn't agree with. Appreciate it wasn't the outcome you wanted, but coming here to give it another try won't get any of us very far. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, our procedures explicitly allow editors to appeal AE reports that closed with no action to the Arbitration Committee. See Kevin's note above. I see our role in such situations as ensuring that the admin's close was reasonable, not to provide an alternative opinion if the report is borderline. In any event, the filer asked for this to be removed, so that can probably be done. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree with that in this case. There would need to be an issue with the case outcome, relevant to the AE close, that actually needs clarification or amendment. It's conceivable that such an issue might arise in a closed AE, but it's equally conceivable that an AE can close without there being any issue with the case outcome that requires clarification. This request falls into the second of those categories. The procedures are written as a catch-all; they don't make every appeal mechanism equally valid in every circumstance. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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;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 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  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). Fish +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)

Clarification request: Gun control (June 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Locke Cole at 16:59, 8 June 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 El C

Statement by Locke Cole
Remedy 1 and 2 of the Gun Control arbitration case (1. For the purposes of remedies in this case, the scope of "gun control" includes governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 2. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, gun control.) provide guidance on what is considered "gun control". However, has placed discretionary sanctions on the  article. This article has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control regulation, nor is it about people or organizations associated with those issues. Can the arbitration committee please clarify whether it was the intention of this remedy to apply to articles about mass shootings? Thank you.

Statement by El C
Pretty much, any recent mass shooting seems to invoke a gun control debate to a certain extent (Virginia_Beach_shooting as an example here), so applying discretionary sanctions to any of them, when disputes becomes protracted, seems like a sensible application of GC/DS. El_C 17:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade, the dispute involves victims' lists — it does not involve gun control. In that sense, the discretionary sanctions were applied to the article broadly. If that overstepped its intended purpose, then perhaps removing them would be the right call. But it would be to the article's own detriment. Again, I think because mass shootings always invoke a gun control debate (unlike in peripheral ARBPIA cases, inextricably), a broader interpretation is more useful. El_C 17:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Template:Editnotices/Page/Virginia Beach shooting has to do with me deciding to keep the status quo ante (no victims' lists) until the RfC about it is concluded. In a sense, it's just easier to say that I'm doing so with the authority of Arbitration enforcement than anything else. Gun control DS, intuitively, felt a bit more pertinent than the BLP DS (which Abecedare suggested), but they are both pretty equally applicable, in my view. But regardless had I used GC, BLP, or no AE at all (just as an uninvolved admin, by fiat), the result would still be the same. Still, I'm relieved that AGK finds in favour of upholding my application of GC DS, and I hope that other members of the Committee are also similarly pragmatic. In a few weeks, the RfC will settle the victims' list question for this article, though not for others — because as mentioned elsewhere, WP:NOTMEMORIAL isn't detailed enough and WP:VL is just an essay. Anyway, after the RfC is done, I am likely to remove the DS altogether (certainly the editnotice will no longer be relevant), just to put all of this in context of what's happening on the groundfloor of the article. El_C 23:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
I was involved in the drafting of this case when I was on ArbCom, and we were well aware that trying to find the exact scope for such a broad topic was going to be difficult, hence the clarification in the original decision. For mass shootings, I would say that they would fall under the normal formulation for discretionary sanctions in a peripherally involved subject; that is, those parts of the article which pertain to the subject under discretionary sanctions are subject to the DS. Since many mass shootings do bear on discussions in regards to gun control, I think there's at least reasonable cause for a notice that they could be subject to the restrictions so that editors are on notice. Portions of those articles which do not bear on gun control (for example, a controversy over the shooter's motivations or the response by the police to the incident) would be outside their scope. On the other hand, if there is a discussion over whether restrictions were too lax or badly enforced and that contributed to the shooting, or whether they should be changed in response to the incident, that portion of the article and edits pertaining to it certainly would be within the scope of the Gun Control case's DS. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Abecedare
I was briefly and peripherally involved in this via my suggestion to El C at RFPP to consider discretionary sanctions for the article. While I had proposed using WP:NEWBLPBAN, El's use of WP:ARBGC instead was at least equally good and valid. Three quick points: I hope the arbitrators will endorse El C's use of the tools, and resist the entreaties and urge to add further complications on when and how such discretion should be used. The additional rule-making rarely works well and only increases the time and effort devoted to meta-discussions and wiki-lawering compared to actual content development (see, ahem, the above two sections on this ARCA page; do you really want to deal with more of that? :) ). Abecedare (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Virginia Beach shooting, as almost all contemporary mass shootings in US, is squarely in the scope defined by the ARBGC case. Just read the lede para of this WaPo article, for example.
 * And no, the identity of mass-shooting victims is not independent of the 'gun control' issue. Read this, for example (I am intentionally not linking to conspiracy theories linked directly to this particular shooting).
 * More broadly: the use of page restrictions at Virginia Beach shooting is an example of the discretionary sanction regime working well. ACDS allowed El C to craft a temporary and minimal set of restrictions based on what was actually going on at the article. And their actions demonstrably halted the ongoing edit-warring while allowing other improvements and expansion to continue.

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).



Gun control: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Where the topic of gun control is concerned, article disruption and problematic user conduct has affected a diverse range of articles. The most divergent articles have related to the historic and political context of gun control.  New mass shootings are part of this "context" and it seems appropriate to me that related articles are subject to the remedies authorised by this committee.  I would uphold El_C's reading of the scope.   AGK  &#9632;  18:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is no coverage of discussion of gun control in a contemporary USA mass shooting article, then I would think that either the article was in the early stages of development, or some form of inappropriate editorial suppression has taken place. To ensure appropriate and proportionate coverage (neither too little nor too much) of this very contentious topic it seems fitting that the scope of the Gun Control DS should be covered under the "social...context" aspect of the ruling. I don't have the slightest doubt that contemporary USA mass shooting articles come under the scope, even when they don't yet have coverage of discussion of gun control. It would be a anti-gun control wikilawyers dream to find a new article on a contemporary USA mass shooting and then fight to keep out coverage of discussion on gun control, and at the same time say that DS cannot be applied because the article doesn't have coverage of gun control. So, yes, from day one, even before there is mention of gun control, articles on contemporary USA mass shootings should come under Gun Control DS. SilkTork (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this has been answered, but before asking the Clerks to close, do any other Arbs wish to comment? SilkTork (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)