Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Edit request

I know the page is only semi-protected, but it says not to edit it, so here goes:

I'd like to request that part of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions be rephrased (without changing its meaning)

From:
An injunction is considered to have passed when four or more Arbitrators have voted in favor of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support.

To:
An injunction is considered to have passed when it is supported by at least four net votes.

Phrasing borrowed from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Opening of proceedings

Reason: It reads really weirdly in its current form, and its not consistent with the rest of the page.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Sorry, this page in particular can't be modified without a motion endorsed by a majority of all active arbitrators, posted at WP:A/R/M for community comment, and with two rounds of community notification at ACN and AN (one for the proposal, and one for the enactment). That's a lot of bureaucracy and paperwork to go to for something that ain't broken, so I'm guessing the committee will take the "don't fix it" approach. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@L235: Oh, lol that is a long of work. I'm guessing that the official policy that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the related WP:IAR can't apply to change the phrasing of something (without changing the meaning)? --DannyS712 (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: unfortunately ARBPOL isn't one of the areas where WP:IAR or WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY are applicable.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Oh well. Also your ping didn't work because you have to sign again when you change the ping template Thanks anyway. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

What you said is true for the arbitration policy itself, but the request was for the procedures, which can and has been modified by motion of the arbitration committee. That being said, it's still probably more overhead than desirable for a minor copy-editing change that does not actually change the procedure. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl, L235, and Cameron11598: So the section of the procedures page about changing them says that Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made. (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Modification of procedures). However, given that this would not qualify as a "significant or substantive modification," what would be the procedure to change it (hypothetically)? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The Committee would have to adopt a motion to change the procedures unless a committee member IAR'd it in; unless it's causing harm, I would let it be. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's in the spirit or the letter of that procedure to prevent minor improvements like this. The proposed wording is clearer and matches that used elsewhere. "Net votes" also has the benefit of being explicitly defined in #Calculation of votes. I suspect it was an oversight that this section wasn't changed when that motion was adopted.

So I've gone ahead and made the change. If another arb or clerk thinks we need a vote, please feel free to revert. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Joe Roe, for doing what is clearly the common sense thing to do. It makes sense to me that "significant or substantive" changes should be made in a deliberative manner and with solid consensus, but worrying over minor copyedits strikes me as needlessly procedural. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Yes, thank you so much --DannyS712 (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Procedural question

What is the correct procedure for requesting that a new article be evaluated by an uninvolved administrator to determine whether it is construed to be within an area of conflict or not and if so to tag it and set the appropriate level of protection?--John Cline (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@John Cline: I'm not sure what this has to do with ArbCom - unless you are trying to determine if a request is about a specific sanction? In general you can ask about COI issues at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Xaosflux. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions redirects to this page. As near as I can figure, that project page attempts to cover the procedure at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Placing sanctions and page restrictions but falls a little short. anyway, this is what has happened: an IP has requested a template protected edit at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Nairobi Dusitd2 complex attack. I can't perform the edit because it assumes the article is under discretionary sanctions and protected to allow only extended confirmed editors to edit the page which is not correct. I would have handled the request but do not know where to advise the editor to take his or her request. I looked for an answer myself, failed to find one, and so I asked here.--John Cline (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @John Cline: The list of topics that are currently covered by discretionary sanctions is at WP:DSTOPICS. There is no specific noticeboard for questions about enforcement, so requests for administrator help can be posted at WP:AN or WP:ANI as appropriate. Specific violations that require intervention such as blocks or editing restrictions should be reported at WP:AE. Note that pages are not protected just because they fall within an area of conflict, but sanctions or protection may be applied if there is evidence of a dispute. Bradv🍁 16:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@John Cline: Nairobi Dusitd2 complex attack had the discretionary sanction notice applied by an IP editor here. As this article is about Kenya, I don't see how this would fall under WP:A/I/PIA. Bradv🍁 16:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to mention the IP's addition of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} to the article's talk page. I would think that is an admin's prerogative, but may be mistaken. That's why I wish a procedure was outlined somewhere. FWIW the article cites president Trump's acknowledging Jerusalem as Isreal's capitol as the attack's causation which may or may not fit the "broadly construed" criteria and again, I would think it an admin's prerogative. More than anything, I wish I knew what to say to the editor, but do not.--John Cline (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

John Cline, the procedures for applying discretionary sanctions is outlined at WP:ACDS (and yes, they can only be applied by admins). I'm not aware of a procedure for contesting invalid application of notices, whether by admins or other editors. I would suggest WP:AN as an appropriate place for these sorts of requests. Bradv🍁 17:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your reply, understand, and will comply. Best regards. Oh yeah, Go Rams.--John Cline (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Statute of limitations

Are there any defined statute of limitations in arbitration procedures? For example, may an administrator be desysoped because of an incident happening ten years ago?--GZWDer (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the best one for bureaucracy of Arbcom, but my understanding is that there is not a statute of limitations specifically, however, if an incident occurred 10 years ago and the administrator had no issues for the remaining 10 years, I'm not sure that the committee would entertain a case. I guess it very much depends on how egregious the violation. Worm^TT(talk) 15:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, arbitration is a measure of last resort and other forms of community dispute resolution will need to have been exhausted. Mkdw ^talk 17:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Another edit request

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I'd like to request that an edit be made to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Editors restricted. This is believed to be an uncontroversial edit that does not change the meaning of the page, but only the format of a specific link.

Specifically, please change:

::::''Modifed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=508025536#Motion_.28Eastern_European_mailing_list.29] on 19:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)''

to

::::''Modifed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=508025536#Motion_.28Eastern_European_mailing_list.29 motion] on 19:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)''

This would change the URL's text from [56] to motion, making it consistent with the rest of the page.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Done by L235. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

And another

This edit request to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Dlohcierekim's edit of 17:31 has been posted twice. 2A00:23C0:7983:8301:10E9:F80:9F3F:2269 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Already done DannyS712 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just been corrected. Thanks, Isaac. 2A00:23C0:7983:8301:10E9:F80:9F3F:2269 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

One more edit request

Sorry, these things just bug me:

In the "lede" of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ, please change

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=608966072 motion]

to

[[Special:Permalink/608966072#Motion (exemption regarding ancient sexuality)|motion]]

This is believed to be an uncontroversial edit that does not change the meaning of the page, but only the format of a specific link; the new link would be in the same format as the other motions listed with it, and would, like the other links, link to the specific section with the motion.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Danny, there are like 8000 of those links in arbitration space. We currently advise clerks not to add permalinks as normal links clarified Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC), but it was proper when it was done for quite some years. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@L235: Oh, sorry. I thought that, since the other format was used both before and after the one I mentioned, it was a oversight. I'll refrain from making such edit requests in the future. Sorry for the trouble --DannyS712 (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course; thanks for bringing it to our attention. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/History#Current_and_former_members

I propose to remove all aliases except former usernames from the list (real names in particular), as real names are 1. nowhere complete, 2. make finding of a specific user more difficult, and 3. don't have a useful propose (as it's usually not the apperence of their signatures).--GZWDer (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense. It appears that real names are only included for those who were arbitrators up to circa 2011, and even if extended to the present would not be complete as not all arbs make their real names public (e.g. Opabinia Regalis does not). The list should be sorted by the username used when the person was an arbitrator with any other former/subsequent usernames listed after that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@GZWDer: given the lack of other comments, I suspect that you can just go ahead and make the change. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Status report from RfPP: Pakistan

We're seeing a lot of requests coming through RfPP regarding Pakistan and also sometimes India, not just today but for the last week or two. It is my assessment that editing in the area of ARBIPA is heating up. If any ball needs to be got rolling, consider this my contribution.

Best regards,

Samsara 16:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Seconded this, I was emergency called today to protect a Pakistan-related article which had a lot of vandalism today from different IPs. Generally, right now more than a half of WP:RFPP is occupied by Pakistan-related articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If you haven't already (I've not checked) give WP:AN a headsup, but I'm not sure what arbcom can do, absent some specific request, as the area is already under discretionary sanctions, which would allow short-term preemptive semi/PC/EC protection of the whole topic area if that was thought desirable. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, Samsara, and Ymblanter: this discussion may be of interest to you; it's a proposal to place all articles related to the India-Pakistan conflict under preemptive EC protection (community authorized, rather than ARBCOM authorized, but the intended effect is the same). Vanamonde (Talk) 22:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I would add: don't forget that ArbCom and AN often can't/won't act against someone (at least not under DS) who has not received {{Ds/alert}} for that topic within the last year. About 95% of the time when I see something in one of these "your ethnicity/country/religion/whatever versus mine" pissing matches that makes me consider an AN report, I find that the person who needs to be brought up doesn't qualify. I've also learned that non-admins leaving the alert nearly always increases drama rather than reduces it, so it's really up to youse-all with the fancy user bit to template these people programmatically so they're not "immune to prosecution". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: You absolutely, 100% do not need to be an admin to leave a DS alert. If someone tells you otherwise, please point them my way. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about rules of template use, but about effects. If you're an admin, and identify yourself as one, and leave a DS/alert, the reaction is usually silence, sheepishness, or a little bit of defensive denialism. If you leave one as a non-admin, the general reaction is "fuck you and your bullshit template, and don't you ever post on my talk page again", or maybe less harsh words but the same sentiment, often followed by retaliatory behavior, like leaving a tit-for-tat copy of the same template (which is against the {{Ds/alert}} docs, though that needs to be clearer), or going to some wikiproject talk page and grandstanding about how someone just "attacked" and "threatened" them and shouldn't there be an ANI case to stop this menace, and [insert more dramatic nonsense here]. It's way more headache than it's worth. I've almost completely given up on DS/alerts as a non-admin, and virtually never leave them, because the blood-pressure hit of dealing with hours or days of histrionics is absolutely not worth it. [I do sometimes still use Ds/alert for WP:ARBATC stuff, though rarely. I consider disruptive behavior in WP:POLICY discussions worse than in article content disputes, because it's not about making sure the encyclopedia is correct and balanced, it's just about gaming the system to stick it to wiki-political "enemies" over nothing but tedious internal trivia. It's a NOTHERE problem.] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, I too have gotten those kinds of hostile reactions when giving a DS alert, and it happens pretty frequently. But I don't see it as creating much of a hassle on my end. (Admittedly, this is largely a matter of personality, and I'm sympathetic to editors who take the backlash more personally than I do.) The thing to do is to remind the livid user that it is purely informational and not an accusation, then throw in a line about if you don't like the policy then take it up with ArbCom not me (you're welcome) – but only do that once. After that, just take an attitude of, essentially, WP:DENY. As it happens, the lower part of my user talk currently has some examples of that, if anyone wants to see examples. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Whereas this is a good point, the recent disruption in the articles on India and Pakistan comes almost exclusively from IP and new editors.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion relating to cases that consider desysop

I would like Arbcom to consider adapting their procedures so that whenever a Proposed remedy of desysop is considered at Proposed decision, that a Proposed remedy similar to this one should be automatically considered.

I genuinely care about Wikipedians, as anyone who is dull enough to wikistalk me would know. I make this suggestion because I value our administrators - and I would strongly support any similar proposal that would benefit non administrators in a similar fashion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

While I agree the arbitration committee should always be looking for the least severe sanction that achieves its desired goals, I disagree with codifying this particular scenario within the arbitration procedures. First, since the harm to be remedied is typically different in each case, the range of potential measures is different. The details of the review conditions and enforcement triggers and actions are key, so it won't be easy to compare some future remedy with the remedy in the GiantSnowman case. Second, it's a recursive problem; when a particular admonishment and set of review conditions is considered, arbitrators should be considering less severe options as well (note this covers cases involving non-administrators as well). I think if any change were to be made, stating a more general principle about seeking the least severe sanction would be preferable. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I consider this proposal unworkable because there is no way to generate a remedy tailored to the specific issues highlighted in an arbitration case automatically. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate a bit (because I do think that remedy was a good compromise and could see it emerging as an unwritten convention over time), we never really resolved the question that Doug posed at the beginning of the GS case, which is does it make sense to let someone keep the bit if they're at the point where they need sanctions on its use? These days we demand near-perfection from RfA candidates. It could be seen as a one rule for those in the club, one rule for those wanting to join it. – Joe (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
There's a bit of chicken and egg with that question too. Is the demand for near perfection a cause, or an effect? Worm^TT(talk) 11:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe, If you were to go down that line, you'd definitely desysop every admin that's ever been admonished and you'd probably desysop most of those that have been involved in Arbcom cases without Arbcom finding against them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
As I said on the other thread, each situation is different, and there are few that I have seen where a desysop is proposed and these sorts of restrictions would be helpful. However, I believe that when a desysop is considered, the committee will also consider an alternative. Perhaps Dweller can provide some examples of where he thinks a similar proposal would have been a better solution than the desysop that was enacted? Or perhaps that it would have been a better solution than the desysop alternative that was enacted? I expect there are so few cases where this might help that it is counterproductive to add such a remedy automatically - though it is one I'll keep in mind for future cases, which is how Arbcom works... Worm^TT(talk) 11:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
"does it make sense to let someone keep the bit if they're at the point where they need sanctions on its use?" Yes, it does. "It could be seen as a one rule for those in the club, one rule for those wanting to join it." The rules are the same, but we do take into consideration various factors, one of which is proven commitment to and investment in the project. That factor is variable, but it is there to be taken into account. SilkTork (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Requesting comments from committee members and other stalkers

Resolved

I am considering an RfC to seek changes to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#CheckUser blocks. I can not move forward without knowing The Committee's mindset to its regard! The changes would otherwise resemble what follows:

... If an ~~administrator~~ editor in good standing believes that a checkuser block has been made in error, ~~the administrator~~ he or she should first discuss the matter with the CheckUser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee. ... (where the stricken red text would tentatively be replaced by the adjacent underlined green text).

My questions for members are:
1.) How does The Committee currently handle these e-mails (in particular, does The Committee respond to the e-mails with replies)?
2.) If consensus was to support changing policy this way, would The Committee be satisfied with the suggested changes or would different verbiage be preferred (if so, please give examples of the said preferences)? and:
3.) If the community endorses such an RfC with a consensus for adopting changes, will The Committee be as amenable to considering e-mails from the wider group of editors that consensus defines as you are now regarding administrator e-mails? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Member comments and replies

Comments and replies from others

My first reaction is "he or she" should be "they" (see Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language in Wikipedia policies). As for the actual substance of the matter, I don't have any problem with that. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
This section is about the unquoted above acts of "undo or alter any block" - this only pertains to administrators, as only administrators can perform this action. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agree. WP:CUBL is specific for admins to not overturn cu blocks and the language is correct. In practice, Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser blocks states "However, all checkuser blocks are subject to direct review and significant scrutiny by the other checkusers and the Arbitration Committee. If you are concerned that a checkuser block has been made in error, you should refer the block promptly to the functionaries team, who will carefully review the checkuser evidence. Checkuser blocks may subsequently be appealed, as a matter of last resort, to the Arbitration Committee." which addresses John Cline's concerns. Wikipedia:CheckUser#Complaints and misuse also addresses this with "Other complaints or inquiries about potential misuse of the CheckUser tool should be referred to the Arbitration Committee."
  — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- What BH said. The language is about preventing administrators from removing CU blocks without consent from someone who has access to the full picture. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  For starters, I'll acknowledge Thryduulf's concern that the message was developed without the proper regard for gender neutrality. I'll admit that I had succumbed to an attitude of casual nonchalance and didn't really consider the matter beyond the elements of basic grammar. I plead systemic inculcation but will admit that I could have done better (in those regards) and should have; From now on I'll make myself do better, by giving the matter the attention it's due. So thank you for that.
  Next, I'll agree that Berean Hunter explained the context of that clause perfectly, and I completely agree. Indeed I was thoroughly confused; missing many important trees for seeing the Forrest. And this actually resolves the entire matter for there's nothing at all in disrepair.
  I would like to ask one question, in parting, however: Why is it always that when a subordinate in some matter wants to pursue having fresh eyes review a matter from some higher station, it is taken as being almost given that matters of misuse and potential abuse must be strongly apparent as well? And rationale is expected to establish these kinds of things, using diffs, from the outset?
  In my case, the few examples where I have wished to inquire on a matter, misconduct was not even thought of as a contributing factor, and these always saw the lack of third party standing as being a quick fail criterion.
  I thought this clause was an opening to such third party standing and I would have wanted this for myself and others in good standing, not exclusively admins. And that fire has not extinguished, I still wish we did have some standing for third parties, and that it was possible for things to move by briefs from "friends of the court". Maybe someone can help me understand why benevolence can not justify such a request but allegations of abuse can (and only such negativity)? --John Cline (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  Speaking solely on the matter of third parties launching an appeal on someone else's behalf: my personal feelings is that I would not want someone else to initiate an appeal for me, as I'd want control over how and when an appeal proceeded. From the perspective of the rest of the community, I feel an appeal should involve the primary party affected, to adequately allow the opportunity for full discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  That is certainly a reasonable consideration. This surely proves that collaboration is the way of progress; others seeing things that another totally missed, all to a better end. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  
  Misconduct does not have to be part of the issue that one wants reviewed and I'm sorry if I made it sound that way. I was trying to show that recourse existed for inquiries whether they involve abuse or not.
  — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

I'd like to request an edit to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, which says that It should not be edited without the Committee's authorisation.

Currently, at WP:AC/DS#Alerts, there is a link [[WP:BOTDICT#automated editing|automated tools or bot accounts]] - this should be [[WP:BOTDICT#Automated editing|automated tools or bot accounts]] (#automated -> #Automated) to actually link to the entry.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, I changed the target page so the anchor matches the section title. Bradv🍁 14:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: That works too, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:ARBIPA

Out of historical interest—AKA idle curiosity I guess—was Bangladesh deliberately omitted from these DS when they were originally established? They've had similarly frosty relations on occasion with both India and Pakistan, after all. ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: The 2012 amendment request that resulted in discretionary sanctions being applied to this case is here. Bangladesh was mentioned, but not included in the actual motion. Looking at the full archive of amendment/clarification requests (at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan), it doesn't appear to have come up since. Bradv🍁 17:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Odd! I'm rather surprised that hasn't bitten us in the collective backside since, but many thanks for the links and info, Bradv. ——SerialNumber54129 17:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to mentioned that Bangladesh between 1947 and 1971, aka East Pakistan, is in my reading included.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: of course! Great point. That would cover the period of the "frosty relations" then—so I guess the DS probably has been used in that context. Ticks all! ——SerialNumber54129 11:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Life would be simpler for admins if Bangladesh had been included. But in practice, most edit wars that come up do fall under WP:ARBIPA under some interpretation. For instance, the wars in 1971 such as the Bangladesh Liberation War were wars in which both India and Pakistan participated. So there is rationale for applying the I/P sanctions to that article. But the purely internal affairs of Bangladesh since 1971 wouldn't appear to fall under ARBIPA if there was no connection to India. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Issuing multiple alerts to a hopping IP

Given the rule to only give a single alert in a 12 month period for any given topic, how do we handle hopping IPs? I've tried to coach one, but today they are back with the same game at a different address. Can I issue another alert to the new address, with a a link for contribs to the prior addresses? But if I did that I would be drawing the conclusion that they are the same editor. Which is a good assumption since they edit the same articles with the same apparent POV. Advice, please! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Compromised account

Hi, Please desysop User:Necrothesp as a compromised account. I've emailed the clerks as well. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Message posted at WP:BN RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

We've approved a level 1 desysop: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Level_1_desysop_of_Necrothesp. Thanks for letting us know, and for the emails. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Thanks for your quick action. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

My account has been restored by WMF Trust & Safety and unblocked. I have set a much more complex password. I now need someone to restore my admin privileges. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Necrothesp for faster service, you could try emailing arbcom-en at wikimedia.org to let them know. I believe a motion is required. –xeno^talk 12:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to the arbitration policy (April 2019)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Version 1

Pursuant to the arbitration policy's section on "Ratification and amendment", the Arbitration Committee resolves that the following change to the arbitration policy will be submitted for formal ratification by community referendum:

The "Conduct of arbitrators" section of the arbitration policy is amended to add the following underlined text:

Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of arbitrators, not counting the arbitrator in question and any arbitrators who have been inactive for a period of at least 30 days.

This amendment to the arbitration policy will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this amendment is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Would you support if we added to the end "provided attempts have been made to contact them through all known communication mediums"? My intent is, of course, not to speed things through while ignoring as many arbs as possible. In practice, we've had several arbitrators who were quite literally uncontactable for long periods of time last year. Ks0stm was the main one. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Now second choice. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
This is an improvement, and gets us nearer to a level playing field. It should not be harder to remove an arbitrator than an admin. SilkTork (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
~~With preference for the addition of a contact clause like the one Rob mentions above.~~ Now second choice to version 2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Per below. This is such a rare event that extraordinary efforts should be made to get all serving arbitrators to vote. – Joe (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Per comments and discussion below. After a long process of redrafting and consultation a few years ago, this bar was intentionally set at two-thirds. I think the member removal provision has passed the few tests thrown at it since then. AGK ■ 20:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Prefer option 2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Version 2 isn't perfect, but is better than this version. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Abstain/Recuse

Version 2

Pursuant to the arbitration policy's section on "Ratification and amendment", the Arbitration Committee resolves that the following change to the arbitration policy will be submitted for formal ratification by community referendum:

The final paragraph of the "Conduct of arbitrators" section of the arbitration policy is amended as follows:

Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of all arbitrators excluding:

The arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and;
Any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known mediums of communication.

This amendment to the arbitration policy will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this amendment is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.

Enacted – Bradv🍁 22:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

I'm proposing this slightly altered version based on the discussions below and conversations with individual arbitrators. The intent of this proposal has always been to discount the votes only of those arbitrators we are entirely unable to reach. This alternative proposal moves the text closer to that intent by starting the "clock" not when an arbitrator goes inactive (but may be lurking around, able to contribute to an important discussion), but rather when we attempt to reach out to them to solicit their feedback using every possible medium of communication. If we're wholly unable to even get an "I've seen this" back from them after 30 days, we move on without them, one way or another. To be clear, even such a small comment would stop an arbitrator's vote from being discounted, giving them every possible opportunity to vote on a motion to suspend or remove an arbitrator. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Second choice. SilkTork (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Second choice RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
~~Second choice; I'm still ok with the first version though.~~ After discussion, first choice, assuming we would be starting the "contact clock" (so to speak) when the discussion started. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this makes sense. I worry about the first proposal, given "inactive" is a bit vague. An arbitrator may not have asked to go inactive, and so there would be a judgment call about whether or not they should be considered such. There are also situations where arbs may not be responding to arb business, but are otherwise active in different ways. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I just realized I hadn't voted on this. I like this better than version 1, which I'm going to stay silent on now that I've put this into majority. Katie^talk 21:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not think it will be confused, but "resolution" is being used here to refer to the time a resolution is put forward for voting, and not the initiation of a discussion that seeks to resolve a situation possibly by removal. The resolution should be held formally with a voting period and not necessarily the first time someone says "I vote for removal". I think it is important to know exactly when this timer is started. Mkdw ^talk 15:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

While this seems like a compromise or evolution on the first proposal, 30 days is a vanishingly short period of time and this second proposal consequently provides insufficient comfort. I oppose effectively on the same grounds as in my earlier submission about this topic. AGK ■ 23:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a firm oppose but I think Joe is right that there's some vague aspects still remaining here. (On Joe's question: starting the clock on the last attempt to contact by email or on-wiki makes sense to me. "Known mediums" is too variable; arbs can reasonably be expected to make themselves available by those two methods.) Sorry for taking a long time to come back to this and then being nitpicky. To be honest, I think the existing very high bar has to some extent served its purpose precisely by seeming "unfit for purpose" - that is, it's so unwieldy that it forces alternative approaches if at all possible, ideally ones that decelerate and deescalate whatever the problem is and refocus the conversation on the actually problematic elements rather than on the simplest-looking solution at hand. I've been on both ends of the arb-activity spectrum and I do think 30 days without any contact at all is sufficient - when I first started and I was one of the "hurry up hurry up come on slowpokes I sent that email two whole days ago" crowd, I would've thought 30 days incommunicado was insane, and even now that I'm on the "I'll get to that in two weeks, maybe" end of things, there's still no chance I'd miss all possible efforts to get in touch with me for a month straight. That said, becoming one of the tortoises is an interesting change of perspective because now my experience of the hares is mostly "whoa, slow your roll". I think there's been a trend toward haste on certain topics over the last couple of years - though I'm not sure if that's a change in the committee or in my perception or both. Either way, it makes it hard to drum up enthusiasm for decreasing the activation barrier for smaller groups to take dramatic actions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Abstain/Recuse

I can't talk myself off the fence. This is an improvement over the first version, but I still worry that this could create a chilling effect within the committee. If this does pass, the second point is potentially unclear: does the "clock" start with the motion? With the first attempt to contact an inactive arb specifically? When the last "known medium" has been tried? – Joe (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrator comments/discussion

I think this proposal is essentially common sense. Two-thirds of arbitrators agreeing on anything is already difficult, but two-thirds agreeing on removal of an arbitrator when we have to count even the arbitrator being voted out and long-term inactive arbitrators (e.g. Ks0stm and DeltaQuad last year) is borderline impossible. This is especially true after the reduction in Committee size this year. This year, it would take 9/12 arbitrators to remove an arbitrator from the Committee, if we assume the arbitrator in question won't vote for their own removal. If we had two inactive arbitrators as well, it would take 9/10. That is an impossible task to achieve in a timely manner. This proposal would effectively reduce those numbers to 8/12 and 7/10, respectively, which is doable in the case of severe issues. I've proposed a month of inactivity instead of any inactivity to avoid decisions being made by a small subset of arbitrators in the event that a large number of arbitrators go inactive for short periods of time, which is common around holidays and the like. This proposal only excludes the votes of those unlikely to be reachable for an extended period of time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: It has never happened, but that's because the current policy is terrible. That is despite an arb leaking information from arbcom-l and now an arb violating the access to nonpublic information policy repeatedly. If Alex had not resigned, I honestly do not know that we could have removed him, despite the Ombudsman Commission report. We may simply not have had the votes, given that we can't expect an arb to vote against themselves and we had several long-term inactive arbs that would be counted as de facto opposing if they didn't place a vote at all. "Just nine votes" sounds like a small number until you have a few inactive arbs. In the situation I detailed above, if we had two long-term inactive arbs and a similar situation came before this Committee, we would need an astonishing 90% of votes of active arbitrators to remove someone. That is not workable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it is appropriate to bring this up, though my feeling is that the Committee should not give fellow members a privileged position. We can desysop an admin on majority decision, so we should suspend an arbiter also on majority decision. Level playing field. So for me the "two-thirds" needs changing along with the automatic recusing of the arbiter under question. Desysopping an admin is more significant than suspending an arbiter. SilkTork (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm really not sure this is appropriate. Removing an arbitrator involves substituting the community's judgment ("We elect this person") with the committee's ("We think this person is unfit") or, more worryingly, a clique's ("The committee has listened to this set of users, who say the arbitrator should be removed"). I rather think that removing an arbitrator should be so obvious, gathering up the required Yes votes is easy. Even inactive arbitrators can usually be contacted for once-in-a-year votes like for removing an arbitrator. This feels like the thin end of a wedge, and like concentrating the power of a (hypothetical) set of arbitrators.
Having a high bar also avoids arbitrators contemplating the removal of colleagues for lesser disagreements; it simply isn't open as a choice except in egregious cases. This change will alter the committee's dynamics, and therefore the role it plays in our project. While this proposal seems like a practical, procedural change (why should inactive arbitrators be counted?), it may unintentionally encroach on plurality. I am uncomfortable. If we think the community failed to consider this issue when they recently reduced the committee's size, perhaps we should first refer it to the 2019 ACE RFC – even asking for that be brought forward. Holding for comments. AGK ■ 10:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
How many times has an arb been removed by vote, not counting "jumped before they were pushed" situations? If it's not very many, I'm inclined to say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I also think AGK's point is a good one. If you have a situation where the arb in question refuses to resign, and those in favour of removing them are struggling to get just nine votes, chances are it's an issue that should be referred back to the community that elects us. – Joe (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: No, and to be honest I would have hoped that was already implied by the current wording and common courtesy. My core concern is the mathematics. Let's say four arbs are inactive (as they are on this motion). That makes the threshold for removing an arb just six votes – less than half of the full committee. Recusals it would make that even less, as would reductions any further reductions to the size of the committee. I'm concerned that this could lead to unpopular views within the committee being stifled. – Joe (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Of course. I was just offering to put it in writing if that satisfied you. As a side note, this proposal would not lead to four arbs being inactive right now for the purposes of removal of an arb. Only Callanecc has been inactive for 30 days. We would have 12 of 13 arbs who are not long-term inactive under this proposal. If one of those 12 was the arb facing removal, eight votes would be required. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mkdw: I fully agree with what you said above, for the record, with the additional caveat that we also need to have contacted them through all known mediums before the timer starts. So, for instance, where one of us has an arb's cell number, we would need to shoot them a text before the timer starts to make sure they've had every possible opportunity to be aware of it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion and comments

This unfortunate episode from 2012 may be worth reviewing. --Rs chen 7754 03:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I also had that in mind, yes. When I've discussed this change privately with a few editors, it was brought up several times and only further convinced me of proposing this amendment. The massive hole in this clause turned that situation into a larger dumpster fire than it might have been. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  - Though I supported Elen in that motion I was the only one, and five Committee members voted for her to be suspended. That's a clear majority, and she should have been suspended, but enough Committee members remained silent for the motion to fail under the 2/3s rule. Even with the proposed changes, the motion would have failed. Under standard simple majority rules, with the abstain, five votes would have seen her suspended. SilkTork (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You might (or might not) wish to add that any recused arbitrators not be counted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Probably should have explained this from the get-go: I have intentionally not omitted recused arbitrators in this proposed amendment, because I believe there should be no recusals when adjudicating the potential removal of an arbitrator. In jurisprudence, judicial disqualification carries with it a concept apparently called the "rule of necessity", based on that article. If the normal rules of disqualification would result in no judge being able to hear a case, then no judge is required to recuse so as to allow a case to be heard to the best of the court's abilities. Given that all arbitrators necessarily work extremely closely with each other for an extended period of time behind closed doors, requiring any one of us to recuse makes little sense when we all have a substantial appearance of potential conflict. I believe a similar "rule of necessity" applies in this situation; because all arbitrators would need to conventionally recuse themselves from ruling on a sitting arbitrator, none should. (You know all of this, of course, Brad. I'm saying it for the benefit of other editors.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  - [1] :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  - In the Elen motion those who recused did so because there was an election in which they and Elen were standing, so there was a conflict of interest, and the recusals were appropriate. There are other circumstances in which recusal is appropriate. Simply not wishing to make a decision on a colleague is not one of them; so using that inappropriate reason for recusal as a reason to over-ride legitimate reasons for recusal wouldn't be workable. SilkTork (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    And note that in the elections she still got above 56% votes and was close to being re-elected, which, at least at the first glance, invalidates the theory she lost all the community support (I opposed her candidacy then FWIW).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    
    Every arbitrator has a potential conflict with every other arbitrator. We work too closely not to develop opinions about each other, camaraderie, etc. Often, we will be directly involved in the events related to potentially removing an arbitrator, if such a situation comes up again. Sure, the extent of those rationales for recusal may vary, but nevertheless, we could all be legitimately considered involved. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'm no lawyer, but this 'necessity' argument isn't working for me either. There's a huge difference between the mild inherent conflict in making decisions about a colleague, which would apply equally to the whole committee, and the more significant reasons that might prompt individual arbitrators to recuse - being candidates in the same election as the arb potentially being removed is about as pure an example as I can think of of an irresolvable individual conflict. (Assuming of course that no one is going to withdraw from the election just to participate in the removal vote.) I'm not explicitly arguing for allowing recusals - I haven't thought in enough depth about this yet, but I'm concerned that counting both inactivity and recusal would result in a group that is too small to be practical for a decision of this magnitude. For a group that normally does everything pretty slowly, I can think of a number of cases both during and before my time when I thought it was clear that people were rushing too much. However, I am explicitly arguing that this 'rule of necessity' stuff is insufficient justification for not permitting recusals in this context. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts generally align with AGK's. While I can see the logic in not counting the vote of the arbitrator being voted about, I do think every effort should be made to get in contact with inactive arbitrators for their opinions to be counted. I assume that arbitrators still share contact information with each other on the arbwiki? When I was on the Committee, had the need arisen, I could have contacted I think every other arbitrator by phone and/or an email address in addition to the one they used on the mailing list. If there is a breach of the privacy policy then the WMF are empowered to remove access to the tools and arbcom definitely has the means to contact them in an emergency. I think (but am happy to be corrected) that Jimbo still has the power to dismiss an arbitrator in extremis. If that really isn't enough then what you should be creating is a recall petition mechanism whereby the community can decide whether the arb in question still holds their trust - abuse of this could be prevented by requiring a petition to be authorised by at least N (non-recused and/or active) arbs (or N%) (who would be under no obligation to vote to remove their fellow arb) and removal to happen if >2/3rds of those voting vote for removal. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Isaacl: There is (or at least was) a provision for arbcom to hold a special election at any time should the number of arbitrators fall below what they feel is required to discharge their duties. I can't immediately find where this is though, so cannot say whether it applies to total arbs, active arbs, or is completely at the committee's discretion, however I don't think the Committee could increase the total number of arbs beyond the maximum authorised by the community (currently 13). Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  - The relevant provision of WP:ARBPOL is "In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may call interim elections, in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators." I believe the "format similar to that of the regular annual elections" would mean that such an interim election would be preceded by an abridged election RfC, which would allow the community to select how many arbitrators they wish to elect. The Arbitration Committee could theoretically ask that the community allow additional arbitrators to be elected over the current total, but the community could also theoretically choose to elect none at all, effectively rebuking the Arbitration Committee for calling unnecessary interim elections. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  - Since the relevant clause specifies inactivity as a reason to need additional arbitrators, I don't see any barrier to electing more. The number of arbitrators isn't fixed in the policy but is just a consequence of the rules established by the community in the annual elections. I agree though that it would be counter to community desires to increase the number of active arbitrators beyond the community's wishes. To that end, I think it would be best for the terms of the interim arbitrators to end once the previously inactive arbitrators return. isaacl (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
A couple of times it is mentioned that the percentage of active arbitrators required to remove an arbitrator increases as the number of inactive arbitrators goes up. I don't think it matters, because in the end, nine arbitrators have to be convinced, and I don't think it gets easier to convince one of them if there are more active arbitrators. I think it is practical to look at scenarios where there are fewer than ten arbitrators active, and so meeting the threshold becomes impossible, but I also think it should be determined if there ought to be a minimum quorum for any vote in support of removing an arbitrator. Should the number of active arbitrators drop below this quorum value plus one, then a contingency procedure can be brought into effect. For example, a special election could be held for substitute arbitrators, or for an oversight group whose sole purpose would be to participate in votes to remove arbitrators. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest that an amendment along these lines should be accompanied with one that sets a threshold at which interim elections will be held to elect interim arbitrators. As each regularly-elected arbitrator returns, the term of the interim arbitrator who had garnered the least support would end. For example, say a threshold of three-quarters of the size of the full arbitration committee is specified: this would mean that interim elections would be held if the number of arbitrators required to remove an arbitrator drops to one-half of the full committee. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  - @Joe Roe: Your concern about the absolute number of arbitrators required to remove one is the reason for my suggestion of an accompanying amendment. @BU Rob13: I'm not clear what you offered to put in writing; can you clarify? isaacl (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    - @Isaacl: See my comment below my vote. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: No arbitrator has ever been removed by committee vote for misconduct. One was removed for long-term inactivity; that was in 2011. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would be interested in your take on whether that's because the provision isn't needed or because it's too strict. I take the view of the latter. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  - I don’t believe the difficulty of removing an arbitrator has been a major issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    - I've always thought that this provision has made it unreasonably hard to remove an arbitrator. As I recall, it was added to prevent the possibility of a coup at one particular time. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I have a minor qualm with the grammar of the proposed sentence and might suggest it would be read more clearly as Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of active arbitrators, not counting the arbitrator in question. Active is defined as activity within the past 30 days. --Izno (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I think a change might be warranted but I'm not sure this is it. 30 days is too short, in my opinion - that can happen quite frequently. However, severely inactive arbitrators should not be counted in the 2/3 calculations (and neither should the arbitrator in question). Another way this could be solved is automatic removal or suspension of an arbitrator after 6 months. This would have the benefit of increased data protection as well. --Rs chen 7754 07:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754: automatic removal is a good idea, although I'd set it at 3 months of no participation in arbitration matters. "Participation" would be defined as commenting on any active request, discussion, motion, etc. on a page in the Wikipedia:Arbitration or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration hierarchy or the arb mailing list, excluding discussions related to their inactivity. If there was a reasonable explanation for the inactivity, then automatic removal could be deferred once for up to 3 months by a motion supported by 2/3 of active arbs (i.e. it takes a motion to keep an inactive arb not a motion to remove one). After 6 months of this complete inactivity they are removed without exception. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  - @Rschen7754 and Thryduulf: Automatic removal gets very tricky for multiple reasons. First, we do need to respect that these arbitrators were voted onto the Committee by hundreds of voters. Kicking them off in cases other than a massive breach of trust is a bit iffy. Second, keep in mind that many arbitrators become inactive for reasons beyond their control that are nevertheless temporary – health, temporary situations at work, etc. We would lose perfectly good arbitrators permanently who might have come back to assist with Committee work if we kicked those individuals off. Additionally, arbitrators often go inactive on the activity list but remain active on individual matters because they do not have the time to handle the full workload of the Committee. This was the case for me for several months from December to February as I dealt with a variety of health issues. I stayed as active as I could, but I didn't want my lack of vote to hold up ban appeals, for instance, so I set myself to be presumed inactive until/unless I showed up to participate. Finally, the number of arbitrators who go completely inactive for six months is extraordinarily low (recently, only Ks0stm), but long-term inactivity from many different arbs for periods of 1-2 months could leave us with no quorum to remove an arb at any one point in time if they overlap. In that sense, this wouldn't fix the issue of an arbitrator being unable to be removed in a timely fashion upon gross breach of trust.
    Having said all that, I definitely am committed to reworking this proposal as needed so we wind up with the right solution rather than just a solution. This was intended as a starting point to solicit community feedback and put this issue on our radar. I'm currently toying with several possibilities and plan to propose an alternative soon-ish. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    - @BU Rob13: Temporary inactivity of the sort you describe would not result in automatic removal - all that is required of an arbitrator is a single comment on a single arb-related happening, on the wiki or on the mailing list, every 3 months. If they haven't managed that low bar but their colleagues still feel they should be kept around, then a majority of active arbs can pass a motion to keep them for another 3 months. If an arb has not managed to make a single contribution to arbitration matters in 6 months then they really are not doing the job they were elected to do and shouldn't be on the committee - and should be removed but removed in good standing. This is a much lower standard than required of oversighters who have to make 5 logged actions every three months. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
      - Looking back at the mailing list, not even Ks0stm would meet that definition of inactivity (going with the six months, because I don't see why ArbCom would ever not retain a member after three months). The potential automatic removal proposal would have no effect. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        I certainly would vote against retaining someone as an arbitrator who had not had any interaction with arbitration matters for 3 months absent truly exceptional circumstances and don't understand why you wouldn't. Arbitrators are elected to do a job, and if they aren't doing it they shouldn't be treated as if they are. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        I'm not about to overrule the results of a community election because someone fell sick. I think it would be patently absurd to do so. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        I disagree. It's always unfortunate when this happens, and our best wishes should always go to that person. But at the end of the day, it would be better to have someone who is able to be active in the role. (I can think of one arb who would have met that definition from this decade). For reference, stewards can be removed outside of confirmations if they fall below a certain activity level, although the last time this happened was 2015. --Rs chen 7754 21:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        It's highly unlikely a removed arbitrator would be replaced, however. That would involve holding a special election, which seems extremely unlikely outside of some catastrophic scenario where a third or more of the arbitrators resigned or fell ill. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        Yes, the two need to go together: any special treatment of inactive arbitrators, whether it is removing them from the post, or taking them out of the quorum required for specific votes, should be accompanied with a willingness to hold interim elections to replace the inactive arbitrators. isaacl (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        I agree with Isaacl and Rschen. If someone is so ill they cannot even make a single contribution in three months then they're too ill to do the job, and we should wish them all the best but the good of the project must come first and we should let them focus on their health. Arbs removed for inactivity would, just like administrators desysopped for inactivity, remain in good standing and would be free to, if they want to, regain their CU and/or OS privs, their functionaries mailing list access and even stand for the Committee again in the future. This is not overruling the results of the election - they were elected to do a job, they are not doing the job so the wishes of the community are already not happening. If the number of arbitrators actually arbitrating falls below a certain level, for any reason, there should be interrim elections to bring the committee back up to strength. This would reduce the chance of a small group of arbitrators taking over. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
        To be clear, I didn't say most of that; I too have misgivings about permanently removing someone who has been selected by the community. isaacl (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
        
        Considering an arbitrator who has gone incommunicado to be inactive is reasonable, to facilitate the ongoing operations of the committee. However I'm not sure it is necessary to remove the arbitrator permanently, particularly in the absence of an interim election to replace the arbitrator. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
        In most circumstances in the RW, people can take leaves of absence without losing their status. Considering that the period of service of an admin is 2 years, if someone could not act for 6 months or even somewhat more in that period for medical or family or personal reasons, there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to act the other 18 months. There's no need to make a rule in the matter, as nobody that I can recall has ever abused this. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Regarding your second proposal, I would remove the word "inactive." Activity / inactivity is a slightly squishy concept; you know as well as I do that it is usually based on an informal email to the clerks' list requesting that someone be listed as active or inactive. So if an arb just disappears, it could be argued they are still "active" as they never requested to be listed as inactive - and then their vote would be required to unseat another arb.
Regarding the discussion immediately above, I don't see a lot of value in removing arbs for inactivity, because in almost every matter the committee considers, inactive arbs are not counted anyway. GoldenRing (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: That's somewhat intended. Per WP:AC/P, "Any arbitrator who has not given prior notice of absence and who fails to post to the usual venues for seven consecutive days is deemed inactive in all matters with, where practical, retrospective effect to the date of the last known post." The idea is that we don't wish to discount the vote of an arbitrator who is around, but for some reason not participating in that one specific discussion. That carries a presumption that they do not support the motion to suspend/remove. If someone is genuinely not around, we can move them to inactive based on that provision of our procedures. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the version 2 proposal, I suggest a minor wording change from "except" to "excluding". isaacl (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Isaacl: Fair, done. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at Version 2, isn't the phrase "solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known mediums of communication" an invitation to wikilawyering? I mean, does ArbCom have to somehow demonstrate that "all known mediums of communication" were tried? What does that mean? Does an inactive Arb who is known to play World of Warcraft lead to a requirement that attempts be made to contact her or him in-game? A written communication sent through snail mail is a medium of communication, do the Arbs now need to maintain a list of each other's addresses (on their private wiki, presumably)? Taken to extreme, does someone need to try messaging by smoke signals or skywriting? Perhaps changing "known" to "reasonable" might avoid some problems. EdChem (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- The chances of any arbitrator taking such a view are dim, and I'm not bothered by them. The point is that, if we know a second email, we try the second email. If we know a cell phone number, we text. If we know an address, sure, send a letter (though no arbitrator has made such information public in the past, to my knowledge). If we don't know the address, we wouldn't need to send a letter. We can't know where an arb will be at any given time, so no smoke signals or skywriting. Even a real-world court doesn't worry about how a statute could be interpreted by an unreasonable person. See reasonable person standard. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voting in private appeals

Any reasons as to why the voting of arbitrators (i.e. the support/oppose/abstain/recuse tally) in private appeals aren't disclosed? ∯WBG^converse 06:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure -- I think we may have disclosed tallies in the past on a per-case basis, but it's not common practice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

In that case, I don't see any reason as to why the common practice can't be changed. You might remember the drama-fest w.r.t to the premises of the first question over here. ∯WBG^converse 05:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The better place to discuss this would probably be at WT:ARBCOM where all the arbs can see it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this over. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Given some of the “personalities” involved, I would be hesitant to participate on appeals if my opposition were noted on every single one that I opposed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

BU Rob13, if you can't disclose your stance on a motion of un-ban/unblock, on-wiki, I choose to believe that you have no business participating over that part. request, behind the scenes, at the first place.

There's enough things that need to be done under the cloak of utmost confidentiality but this's not one of them. ∯WBG^converse 15:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: To be clear, I'm not opposed to noting my votes on most successful block/ban appeals. I supported this one weakly. I am opposed to noting my votes on unsuccessful block/ban appeals, mostly because I think it could make individual arbitrators targets for harassment by the many LTA cases that we get appeals from. The appeals I had in mind were mostly appeals related to harassment. There have also been a couple cases where the person appealing had been litigious in the past, and noting individual votes could potentially result in a frivolous lawsuit targeting individual arbitrators. I'm more than happy with transparency as a default for successful block/ban appeals. Hope that clears up my stance. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A very small proportion of our appeals end with a public motion on the noticeboard. I've no strong objection to putting the votes on these, but it might lead users who appeal with a different outcome---i.e. ones we decline or unblock without conditions---to also ask to see the votes, which given the volume would be a hassle. And I don't really see how the information is interesting in the majority of cases? – Joe (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I am highly skeptical that the committee deals with such an *extraordinarily* high volume of ban/block appeals; that the mere tabulation of s/o/a/r columns (per appeal) would consume intensively high resources. And, I believe that you do *discuss* these high volume of appeals with optimal *judiciousness*, which ought to consume resources, larger by a few orders of magnitude.

These information shall be disseminated in the spirits of greater transparency, which governs the broader movement and are widely helpful in adjudging performances of individual arbitrators. ∯WBG^converse 15:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: What I imagined was the individual users would ask us for the votes after we gave them the result of the appeal, which would approximately double the amount of email response we have to do for that case. It's not impossible by any means, but since we are currently only just staying on top of our appeals caseload, it doesn't seem worth making extra work for ourselves for an arguably pointless increase in transparency. As Rob also hinted, we also get cases where we don't exactly want to encourage the appellant to engage in a back-in-forth.

A summary tabulation is more reasonable. In fact we've already collated some of that data internally, and I was going to suggest summarising it at the end of this year as a revival of the annual activity reports. – Joe (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I note that an ex-arb Doug Weller to have commented--I'm all in favor of where possible posting votes, and in fact in my first year when there was some discussion about whether or not to do so.

At the end of the day, I am asking for the committee to post these vote-tallies for any appeal that is considered in detail, as the general workflow. The committee may choose to not disclose it, if there are extraordinary scenarios that merit such a non-disclosure, in their opinion. Currently, it's the reverse. The general workflow is to not disclose the tallies. ∯WBG^converse 15:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

We have received somewhere in the ballpark of 80 individuals seeking an appeal in past 16 weeks. The typical turnaround time has been between one and three weeks depending on the complexity of the appeal and the circumstances surround the block or sanction. We have a few appeals sitting at over 100 messages over a two month period. These numbers do not count repeated appeals (a common occurrence), nor does it include other activities of the committee (e.g. harassment complaints).

Individuals directly appeal to the committee for a number of reasons. As a matter of procedure, we do not usually accept appeals if the individual has access to their user talk page or UTRS unless there are circumstances that specifically warrant a private appeal, e.g. the involvement of private information. Personally, I want editors to be able to approach the committee with privacy issues in a way that preserves their dignity. I do not want to keep a public log of who has submitted an appeal and the outcome in the form of a voting breakdown. Not only will this likely decrease the number of appeals from people who may need help, but may also lead to the public trying to investigate issues on their own. If User X files an appeal to the committee and their name is publicly logged, then it stands to good reason that a number of people will check User X's contributions and pages to see what might be or have been the issue.

The point of transparency is to allow the scrutiny of misconduct -- the community would not be able to evaluate the circumstances and contents of these appeals, nor be able to receive answers about the rationales for how an individual arbitrator has voted without violating confidentiality. I do not think this proposal, as a call for transparency, could reasonably achieve the actual purpose for transparency. Likewise, the community has clearly recognized that there are instances where absolute privacy is required and as such transparency is not possible. Any calls for transparency need to be balanced against the purpose for having confidentiality. Mkdw ^talk 17:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There are other places where more transparency could be possible without compromising confidentiality and I agree with Doug as to "where possible" and within reason. It is why I supported the practice of consistently logging unblock appeals granted by the committee at ACN as it already requires a publicly logged action. Ultimately, the community has elected the individuals of the committee to expressly decide on confidential matters that cannot occur with much transparency. We are expected to follow that mandate, now more than ever, as evidently expressed by the community amid recently events. Mkdw ^talk 18:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Link to old non-public information policy at WP:AP

Currently, the arbitration policy links to the old criteria for access to non-public data at foundation:Access to nonpublic data policy, which has been out of date since 2015. The link should be updated to meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy, which is the current policy. I am not sure how much (if any) discussion this requires, but I am leaving a note here in case it does. --Danski454 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Done: Special:Diff/893046314/prev. I have updated the title and link destination. AGK ■ 16:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request: Gun control (April 2019)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Case or decision affected: Gun control arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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#sanctions.user. I'm aware that deletion is unusual as an enforcement action, but didn't expect it to be as controversial as it has proved.

Dlthewave appealed this at AE and in the course of the appeal, Bishonen advised them to start a request at WP:DRV, which they did. Bishonen undeleted the page so that those participating in the DRV request could see the content. I have objected to the undeletion as a unilateral overturning of an enforcement action but Bishonen has declined to self-revert this. I have no interest in wheel-warring over it.

A number of editors at DRV have objected to the deletion, for two main reasons: Firstly, that the content doesn't violate policy, and secondly that deletion is not a valid enforcement action (ie is not authorised under discretionary sanctions). Additionally, I and a couple of other editors have pointed out that DRV can't review enforcement actions, but a number of editors have objected this, too. These objections include some very experienced editors who I respect and I'm not so sure of myself as I was 24 hours ago. So I would like the committee please to answer these questions:

Is deletion of a page an enforcement action that is authorised under discretionary sanctions?
If the answer to 1 is "yes", was Bishonen's undeletion a violation of WP:AC/DS#sanctions.modify?
If the answer to 1 is "yes", is DRV a valid venue to review deletions carried out under discretionary sanctions?
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).

@SilkTork: 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)

@SilkTork: 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#admin.expect). 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)

@SilkTork: 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)
@SilkTork: 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)
@BU Rob13: That is a good point and I will strike my fourth question. GoldenRing (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: 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#sanctions.modify. 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#appeals.notes.
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)

@RexxS: 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)

@BU Rob13: 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)

@Opabinia regalis: 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)
@BU Rob13: 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)
@BU Rob13: 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)
@Premeditated Chaos: 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)
@SilkTork: 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

@SilkTork: You have perhaps forgotten part of the process, then. Unless pages at DRV are temporarily undeleted, only admins will be able to read them, i. e. only admins will be able to discuss them in a meaningful way. It's not supposed to work like that. I followed these instructions for how to do it. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

Statement by Simonm223

Is deletion of a page an enforcement action that is authorised under discretionary sanctions? Based on the argument by Ivanvector at DRV I would say no. It is not. Furthermore I think the argument that it constituted WP:POLEMIC in the first place is flawed. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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, Wikipedia:Deletion process: "The speedy deletion process applies to pages which meet at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion, which specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media." (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: "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." (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)

@Premeditated Chaos: 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)

@SilkTork: 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#G5. 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)

@SilkTork: 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 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 GoldenRing's own statement, the relevant criterion upon which they are relying is:

Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, perceived flaws, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately ... (my emphasis)

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 GoldenRing. Contrary to what you think, BLP and COPVIO are the only absolute prohibitions to undeletion of content for obvious reason, see Wikipedia:Deletion review #Temporary undeletion 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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

@SilkTork: --- 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 Wikipedia: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#G11, 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#G9 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 Wikipedia: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.

Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies#Log_of_notifications includes 15 mainspace deletions.

Wikipedia: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)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion: Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications 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#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave closed, it is patently absurd that AE enforcement procedures should be the mandated first step in reviewing and appealing abuses of deletion policy. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 24#User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles 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)

@BU Rob13: 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 GoldenRing on the merits of the deletion, I agree with their submission of 16:22, 26 February 2019 in that the Committee should clarify whether deletions (other than those already allowed by ordinary deletion policy) are in principle allowed as discretionary sanctions, and whether any review of deletions labeled as discretionary sanctions must take place by way of the procedures for the appeal of AE actions. In my reading of applicable policy, the answer to both questions is clearly yes, but the opinions to the contrary that have been voiced at DRV show that this question needs clarification. Sandstein 16:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

@RoySmith: re Special:Diff/891855139: Agree that resolution would be nice. The rest is a nonissue: you should be looking at the content and logs of pages you restore anyway, even temporarily. If it contains blatant attacks or copyvios, or it's labeled as a copyvio or an "arbitration enforcement" variant ("AE" or "discretionary sanctions" or "DS" or "AC/DS"), you don't just restore it on your own initiative even if you think the labeling's incorrect, you consult with the deleting admin. If the deletion isn't labeled as arbitration enforcement, then it's not a valid enforcement action, per WP:AC/DS#sanctions.log. —Cryptic 16:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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. GMG ^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. GMG ^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)

BU Rob13, 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)

@SilkTork:, @Joe Roe:, @RickinBaltimore:, 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" [2], 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. ^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#BUREAUCRACY and WP:GAMING are important. We don't want a decision under which any admin who seeks to avoid DRV and general community scrutiny for questionable deletions can simply claim some vague AC/DS rationale and thereby close all avenues of appeal other than AE (which is a star chamber that leans toward presumption of guilt of anyone accused by an AE admin, and is generally hostile to editors who challenge an AE admin's decision), or ArbCom (which is even scarier to most editors, though actually fairer). In both processes, there is a strong bias in favor of the admin who acted, both in the minds of those reviewing the action and usually in the admin party's knowledge of the excessively legalistic procedures surrounding ArbCom and its AE board. ArbCom is not bound by precedent, so the fact that it has historically treated all AC/DS actions as appealable only to AE or ArbCom is irrelevant. Explicitly allowing deletion as a DS action is dangerous, and removing DRV as an examination venue would be a disenfranchisement of the community without any real discussion or notice. ArbCom deciding that its clan of AE "enforcers" how has deletion impunity and near-immunity (option B in the survey, or even option C with DRV excluded) would be a poor and controversial move. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem

I think that the approach proposed by AGK – to make it clear that deletions are not possible as an AE action – is the best way forward. I recognise the concern that SilkTork raises, but the alternative proposal is not the way to address that, in my view. As I understand it, SilkTork wants it to be clear that an admin may make a deletion under their ordinary authority under the deletion policy while also addressing an AE situation. However, by adding the extra mention of the deletion policy implies that the use of ordinary authority in relation to deletions is an exception. It admits the interpretation that the existing practice of an indefinite block with only the first year as an AE action is not permitted.

I suggest that AGK's approach / addition be preferred, and a relevant addition to the DS procedures state that:

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)

@SilkTork: 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 GoldenRing'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#Modifications by administrators to state that by default, any content-based changes resulting from an WP:AE action (including deletions) can be reversed provided there is a clear consensus via an established venue like WP:DRV, without requiring that that be a consensus of administrators; and that in cases where there is a disagreement, such consensus is presumed to be sufficient to establish that something is a content issue. While WP:AE isn't supposed to apply to content in the first place, it is inevitable that there will occasionally be overlap, and it's important to establish that in cases where that occurs, an administrator cannot override or ignore consensus on content issues simply by invoking WP:AE (and that the default, in cases of confusion, is to go with a broad consensus when it exists.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

Note that earlier today I closed the AE appeal [3] and consequently restored the page in question. At the time, I was not aware of the existence of this clarification request (I have probably seen it on my watchlist some time ago, decided that it has no relation to my activities, and forgotten about it). I believe that the closure of AE is completely orthogonal to the request, since I believe nobody says the page may not be restored as a result of an AE closure. However, if anybody feels that the existence of this clarification request mandates that the AE request must sty open, feel free to unclose it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Unclosed, following objections from Goldenring--Ymblanter (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

@SilkTork: - I was hoping you (as the tweaking arb) could clarify how this is going to avoid looping round to the same problem - if it goes to AE, which would probably rule to adopt the broader interpretation of its own authority, then we seem set to end right back up again here as the "losing" side appeals the decision. The "appropriate forum" is only a symptomatic consideration since it would never be considered for DRV if arbitrary sanctions didn't/doesn't include deleting pages. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mojoworker

If the final motion passes (as it appears it will), you may also want to clarify WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications. Will an undeletion request be considered to be the same as a request for modification of page restrictions and so may be made by any editor? Otherwise, "(a)ppeals may be made only by the editor under sanction", and for a page deletion, the deletion could affect many editors (an ESSAY for example). Perhaps explicitly change it to something like "Requests to undelete pages or for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor." But does that really belong in a section titled "Appeals by sanctioned editors", when that's not necessarily who will be appealing? Mojoworker (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

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)
@SportingFlyer: 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 GoldenRing? 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. Bishonen, could you give us some of your thinking behind why you undeleted the page? SilkTork (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, 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)
@Bishonen:, 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 GoldenRing. 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 GoldenRing, 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)
GoldenRing "I am a little unsure what you mean when you say, "such a deletion should meet with policy."" 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#sanctions.modify, 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#appeals.notes (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 GoldenRing'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. ~ Rob₁₃^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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  - @SmokeyJoe: 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 AssadistDEFECTOR, 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^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. ♠PMC♠ (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 Dlthewave for conduct that disrupts the area of conflict would have been a discretionary sanction. Deleting the page on which Dlthewave 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 ■ 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)
- @GoldenRing: 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. Mkdw ^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). ~ Rob₁₃^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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
A. AGK ■ 23:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
C Katie^talk 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). – 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? ~ Rob₁₃^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. ♠PMC♠ (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"? – Joe (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^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. ~ Rob₁₃^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)

@DGG: 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.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Hobit: 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? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  - @Hobit: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
GoldenRing, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Discretionary sanctions procedure

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

(1) Proposed:

The Discretionary sanctions Procedure § Sanctions is amended at sanctions.caveats to read as follows:

For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans; to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage; to delete pages; nor to enforce discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope.

where the text underlined is to be inserted.

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 ■ 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? – Joe (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Support as written. ♠PMC♠ (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. ~ Rob₁₃^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. Katie^talk 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 Worm^TT(talk) 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. ~ Rob₁₃^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

@Spartaz: 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)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

(1) Proposed:

The Discretionary sanctions Procedure § Sanctions is amended at sanctions.caveats to read as follows:

For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans; to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage; to delete pages outside of the deletion policy; nor to enforce discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope.

where the text underlined is to be inserted.

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)
~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Support as second choice. – 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). ♠PMC♠ (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 SilkTork'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 ■ 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. Katie^talk 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

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The following text is added to the "Important notes" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications, replacing the current text of the fourth note:

All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · 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, SilkTork. Do you mind if we rework this to just replace important note 4 with this text? ~ Rob₁₃^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 ■ 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. – 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 Worm^TT(talk) 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Katie^talk 15:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

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)

BU Rob13 - 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”? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@SilkTork, AGK, Joe Roe, RickinBaltimore, GorillaWarfare, and Worm That Turned: 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. ~ Rob₁₃^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. – 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". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about whether or not a ban gets mentioned on the committee message board

Putting this here because I'm not sure where else to put it, and feel free to remove if this isn't appropriate, but why is is that certian editors well be mentioned on the board when they're banned, like TDA, But others won't, like Zawl and Turtle neck ninja?💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 00:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The difference between those two sets is one was subject to an ArbCom decision before being banned, the others were not. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

But wasn’t zawl/fwth subject to a one account Arbcom restriction? Or does that not count as an Arbcom discion?💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 01:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Amanda meant an ArbCom decision as in the result of a case. Zawl/FWTH was not banned as the result of a case, their block was taken over by ArbCom after the fact as a result of private information. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions

I created a petition at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to say that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, moving, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The petition part of the arbitration policy amendment process requires a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. The ratification process then begins and requires majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in support.

There is a parallel RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that should not be confused with this one about the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I just posted something similar to what I am posting below in a reply to Joe Roe, but think it is worth noting to the whole of ArbCom:

The fact that ArbCom failed to reach consensus on the limits of its authority on deletions made some clarification of ARBPOL desirable.
The fact that it then proceeded to ensure that a deletion with claimed DS protection could not be reversed at DRV – despite knowing that DRV had already concluded that the deletion should be reversed – made a clarification necessary.
The facts that, with a DRV having given a clear result on the community's view:
- some Arbs commented at AE that there was no reason to overturn because the decision might be wrong but was within discretion;
- a former Arb then closed the AE endorsing and re-imposing the deletion despite it having neither policy nor consensus support because there was not a substantial majority of administrators (because non-administrators are worthless / irrelevant according to the prevailing AE culture, about which ArbCom does nothing) who saw it as invalid; and,
- despite the lack of clear ArbCom authority to delete such materials under ARBPOL, nor to delegate deletion authority outside the deletion policy as valid DS actions

collectively made a modification of ARBPOL necessary and urgent.

The mess about resysops, another area where ARBPOL appears to me to give ArbCom no authority, proves that ArbCom ignoring its limits of authority is a trend and not simply a one-off.
The current proposals are entirely the product of ArbCom overreach and were totally avoidable if ArbCom had simply said something like:

"ArbCom authority over deletions is unclear and in any case would only be used in rare and unusual circumstances (like the privacy issues Rob has raised). We recognise that GoldenRing and Bishonen acted in good faith, and wish to clarify that it is our view that DS / AE should not be used for deletions, and any deletions that may be needed should be undertaken in line with the existing deletion policy and be subject to standard review. Deletions that may need consideration that would not be supported by the deletion policy may be raised directly with the Committee at ARCA or by email if privacy considerations require."

Instead, having side-stepped the authority / policy question, ArbCom modified its procedures (which are deliberately beyond the community ability to edit) to entrench any claim of AE protection as beyond community review without jumping through hoops.

You have created a process where, to simply hold a DRV:
- a significant majority consensus is needed at AE or AN (where non-admins can't see the page in question anyway)
- no matter the outcome, either approach is subject to further appeal at ARCA
- Either or both of AE and ARCA can reject an appeal without considering the merits of the deletion by focusing on admin discretion
- The actual holding of the DRV can be significantly delayed, and potentially allowed without the restoration that is usual for DRV discussions. Policy-based review looking at deletion policy and content, etc, can be prevented by upholding the deletion on discretion grounds (as is the present situation in the deletion that sparked all this off).
All of this was done unanimously (IIRC) by a Committee that can't even agree it has authority over deletion... and you are surprised there is push back?
In my opinion, ArbCom needs to learn that its authority has limits and if it won't respect them, the community can act to codify and restrict those limits. A few other ideas that are worth considering:
- Adding to ARBPOL a clear statement on resysopping, clarifying what is within your remit, as the present wording suggests no role for the Committee at all.
- Clarifying that procedures may be at the Committee's discretion, but must conform to the authority granted by ARBPOL and must not be de facto creations of new policy.
- Providing a mechanism for community review / challenge of procedures created by ArbCom.
- An addition that prevents the Committee from using IAR to unilaterally extend its authority or power, such as by reinterpretation of ARBPOL.

EdChem (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Restrictive clause?

The first sentence under "Dismissing an enforcement request" presently reads: "When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches." I may perhaps be misreading, but my impression is that the relative clause is restrictive and should therefore not be set off by comma. I suggest the sentence be accordingly changed to "When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present that would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action. If appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches." I've also divided this into two sentences, which isn't necessary if it's desired to leave it as one. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Leaning toward disagreeing, because "which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate" clearly also applies to "When no actual violation occurred". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ought to go without saying perhaps, but this is quasi-legal language … Would it be clearer, though, if “which would make the imposition of a sanction” were replaced with “in either of which situations the imposition of a sanction would be” or something like that? Or if “the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that” were moved to the front (after “When”) so as to make the two mentioned outcomes more of a package, so to speak?—Odysseus 1479 23:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It is in fact not clear that the relative clause relates also to "When no actual violation occurred". Either of the solutions proposed by Odysseus1479 seems appropriate (though significantly less so the first – see below). Thus:

1. When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, in either of which situations the imposition of a sanction would be inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.

Or:

2. When the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that no actual violation occurred, or that exceptional circumstances are present that would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.

A third possibility remains, which would be my original suggestion, which I suspect represents what was originally intended (as the second does also). Again divided into two sentences (as the second may be also, and I would hope that it would be):

3. When no actual violation occurred, or [when] the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present that would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action. If appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.

The first of these three impresses me as too wordy and somewhat inaccurate, as exceptional circumstances may exist that would make the imposition of a sanction highly appropriate. It's also unnecessary to include the first condition with the second. Consider the sentence: "When no actual violation occurred, administrators may also close a report with no action", in which the first may relate directly to the second. I have indicated an optional insertion of "when".

But actually the suggestion to move "the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that" to the front is quite apt, so I'm accordingly entering a two-sentence variant of 2 on the project page:

When the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that no actual violation occurred, or that exceptional circumstances are present that would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action. If appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches. This is an improvement on the original sentence, and perhaps we can leave it at that. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I haven't made the change, noticing "Adopted on 21 April 2017". I don't know whether a vote is necessary or not for the change to be made, but I suppose there should likely be a notice of modification in any event. I'll leave making the change to someone else, whoever, whenever and however. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Applying sanctions would be inappropriate if no violation occurred, so I do not think it matters that one clause hangs awkwardly off the other. You are correct that the committee would usually vote on this kind of change, although minor corrections to errors sometimes don't need formal voting. AGK ■ 21:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Emails to the Committee

I just wanted to know the process of sending emails to the Committee. In the past I have sent emails to the Committee and I have gotten no response. Even if the response is basically telling me to "go away" that is a better response than ignoring me. Being transparent and letting me know that you received my email and that it's not in your SPAM box is appreciated and in accordance with ADMINACCT. I would appreciate at least a response telling me that you received my email. That I have a valid concern or question is irrelevant, I do deserve the respect of having my email answered. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ARBCOND is the policy with respect to responsibilities and accountability. If you are referring to your email two days ago, I can confirm it has been received and currently being discussed. If you are referring to the email previous to that, it was responded to within one hour. The one before that is still being considered and I have bumped the thread as a reminder. Mkdw ^talk 18:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I just got an email telling me that ARBCOM is in receipt of my email. And I know some of my email doesn't apply anymore, but the gist of it does. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

We have, it seems to me, moved away from "acknowledging" emails. Bounced or lost emails are infrequent in this post-dialup, post-Mailman age. Contrasted with nearly a decade ago, you are less likely to get plain 'receipts' from an arbitrator after emailing the committee. Nowadays, your first response tends to be substantive: an arbitrator reviews your message, judges whether the committee has anything to debate or work on, and if not then they respond that "We got your mail". Substantive responses are more time-expensive than merely acknowledging emails, so instant replies have become unusual. Rightly or wrongly, this seems more often to be our system and hopefully sharing helped you understand what happens to email. Concerning your most recent note, I see that Mkdw has now responded to you on our behalf. AGK ■ 21:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4