User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page was deleted as a unilateral Arbitration Enforcement action by GoldenRing, per WP:POLEMIC, during an AE discussion. I opened an appeal and was advised to open a Deletion Review. Here's my argument from AE:

"I feel that Goldenring's deletion of a page in my userspace, User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles, has a chilling effect on my ability to document and share what I view as a long-term pattern in the gun control/gun crime topic area. This documentation plays an essential role in addressing current problems that are, in my opinion, a continuation of that pattern. My intention is to demonstrate a pattern and not to attack the individual editors who have been involved in that pattern. This removal is especially concerning when the "opposing" attacks and accusations which I documented are allowed to remain in full view at WP:Firearms and other talk pages. I would be open to discussing ways to do this that would not be viewed as an attack page, since similar pages maintained by other editors have passed MfD."

The page was also meant to provide supporting evidence for an opinion piece which I've submitted to Signpost. As I stated at AE, I would like to work to find a way to share my views with the community without running afoul of our policies and guidelines. I realize that this is a sensitive topic and would be open to modifying the content or finding a different way to present it. – dlthewave ☎ 21:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Disagree that the subpage violates POLEMIC. Interestingly, this distinction is currently under discussion at WT:UP. In any case, POLEMIC is not a CSD criterion. The log says “Arbitration enforcement action under gun control DS.”. Invite User:GoldenRing to explain or provide a link. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Procedural comment: This DRV should be closed as out of process. Per WP:AC/DS#Appeals, arbitration enforcement actions (including deletions) can only be reviewed at WP:ARCA, at WP:AN or at WP:AE, where an appeal has already been made. Sandstein 23:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Disagree as previously with Sandstein about DRV being scope-limited from anything ArbCom/DS. It is far from clear that this deletion was ArbCom authorised. ArbCom and ANI need to respect community consensus, and DRV is a very important part of community self-management. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Disagree that the subpage violates POLEMIC. The relevant part there requires "if they will not be imminently used". Not only not very old, and continuously worked on, but as Dlthewave explained, directly related to his/her writing on the matter. Some matters that involve long time frames, many articles, or many editors require a lot of work to compile evidence and present information, and I don't agree that that should always be done in off-wiki secrecy. If Dlthewave can articulate a rough timeline for use of this material, I don't see any reason not to allow it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion Defer to WP:AE. The warning issued was, against misusing Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia. The page in question, User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles was clearly related to Wikipedia. It was a collection of quotes and statements regarding specific Wikipedia articles. Hence, not a violation of the warning. If we wanted to ban User:Dlthewave from all topics related to firearms, we could have used the standard, ... broadly construed language. We didn't. So there was no reason to delete the page. Bring it to MfD if you must, but WP:CSD is was not warranted. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

To clarify, my use of, we, above, is intended to mean, the community. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

This is now under discussion at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Gun control. As noted there by User:SilkTork, it is not useful to be having two parallel discussions. Since ArbCom is a higher authority than DRV, I suggest this discussion be closed and let ArbCom sort it out. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• overturn speedy for now If there is some criteria related to AE I'm unaware of, or if there is a great IAR case, I'm open to it. But on the face of it, I don't see what rule this page was violating. I'll admit I can't even figure out what case the quotes are trying to make. Hobit ( talk) 05:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per WP:POLEMIC 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. You have several diffs and each section has link to a talk page where the quotes are from, even if you do not directly mention user names. Per your statement "has a chilling effect on my ability to document and share what I view as a long-term pattern" - Wikipedia user pages are not for documenting long-term patterns generally. If you are going to use these in a timely manner somwhere, mind if I ask you where and when? And remember that when these kind of laundry lists are used at ANI/ARCA/AE, they should be removed afterwards. -- Pudeo ( talk) 07:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• A few points about this:

1. Sandstein is correct above, this forum is not the place to review arbitration enforcement actions. The arbitration committee has authorised standard discretionary sanctions for the gun control topic. Standard discretionary sanctions include "other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project" and it is under this provision that I deleted the page. Arbitration enforcement actions can be appealed only at WP:AE, WP:AN and WP:ARCA. Any administrator who undeleted the page as a result of this discussion would be overturning an arbitration enforcement action out of process, which can (potentially) lead to desysopping.
2. Dlthewave has repeatedly stated that the purpose of this page is to document the long-term whitewashing of articles, ie problematic editing by other editors. WP:User pages states "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." That is, this page would be allowed if it were intended for legitimate dispute resolution and were to be used in a timely manner. Dlthewave has repeatedly stated, most recently here, that it is not intended for dispute resolution but as background material for an opinion piece in The Signpost.
3. If Dlthewave wishes to use the material for dispute resolution and can outline a timeline for using it (on-wiki or privately by email, if they wish) then I will undelete the page. GoldenRing ( talk) 07:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
4. @ SmokeyJoe: See above for the explanation you requested; my apologies for not pinging you when I posted it. @ RoySmith: I'm not sure what warning you are referring to - the deletion was not in relation to any warning or ban, but because the page is a violation of policy in an area subject to discretionary sanctions. @ Hobit: See the explanation above. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• User:GoldenRing, I am not completely clear (i) what DS is being referred to and (ii) how it was decided that this subpage violated what. As for DS authorising this, I dispute that ANI ever had the authority to delegate speedy deletion to DS AE enforcing admins. Go back to that authorising ANI, a few days, a few participants, and no mention of deletion. Did ArbCom write a motion that speaks to this page? We had this fight several months ago over a cryptocurrency article, and thankfully the DS enforcing admins have backed off Speedy deletions. Why is this different, why was MfD not the appropriate deletion process? The argument that DRV is not entitled to review all deletions is offensive, although the purpose of the review of ArbCom deletions should be understood to be whether it was really an ArbCom deletion. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ SmokeyJoe: (i) I linked to the authorisation of discretionary sanctions in my statement above. What is not clear about that? (ii) I have explained above my reasoning for deciding that the subpage violates WP:UP - do you have any specific questions about that reasoning? As for the rest of your comment here: I don't know why you repeatedly refer to ANI - what has ANI to do with any of this? I am sorry that you find an argument offensive, but nonetheless it is correct; see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.modify. Sanctions placed by administrators may not be modified without the consent of the enforcing administrator or a successful appeal at one of AE, AN or ARCA; "Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." GoldenRing ( talk) 12:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Hi GoldenRing. (i) You mean this link? OK thanks. (ii) Yes, and the validity of that reasoning is in dispute. The subpage does not violate anything at WP:UP. (iii) ANI? Sorry, mean AN. These discretionary sanctions each individually arise at WP:AN, is that correct? For example, blockchain, the one in dispute last year. WP:AN does not have the standing to expand WP:CSD to unilateral AE. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Enforcement contains no mention of deletion. Your deletion violated the opening sentence of WP:CSD. The conflict between the usersubpage and WP:UP gets decided at WP:MFD. Unilateral speedy deletion as an AE "sanction" is overreach, and to argue that "deletion review" cannot review your deletion is offensive, yes. WP:AC/DS does not authorize deletions. A reasonable argument is that they add leeway to a more generous interpretation of the CSD criteria, G11 for blockchain articles for example, but endlessly expansive unilateral deletions in the name of AE, no. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ SmokeyJoe: Ah, I think I see where the confusion is coming from. No, these sanctions are not authorised by a community consensus at AN but by the arbitration committee. You are correct that there are some similar sanctions (usually referred to as general sanctions) that are authorised by the community at AN, but this is not one of them. If you think that my interpretation of the sanctions is wrong and that deletion is not authorised under the sanctions, then the place to make that argument is WP:ARCA. Otherwise, the plain language of the sanctions includes "any other reasonable measure" and deletion is one of them. GoldenRing ( talk) 13:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• GoldenRing, thank you, yes you have uncovered some of my confusion. Asking "Is deletion is a reasonable measure" at WP:ARCA looks like the way forward. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• It's clear that Arbcom is a "higher court" than DRV. But as a matter of principle, we can't just allow a sysop's claim that a page was deleted under Arbitration Enforcement to inoculate his action against DRV. If that was what we did, then it would, potentially, be open to some forms of abuse.

  On the other hand, it's important that sysops who're willing to work in the AE environment have confidence that they can do their work with the community's support. And that means that once a sysop labels their action as "AE", the final decision about whether it's appropriate has to be reserved to Arbcom. I imagine that Arbcom will expect and insist on higher standards than the community as a whole. But that doesn't mean we have to wash our hands of it:- Arbcom is a small body with a lot to do, and it will be helped by our advice and analysis.

  So all in all, while I don't feel it's open to us to overturn an AE action, I feel that it's for us to decide whether, under DRV rules, the page should have been deleted and then refer the matter back to Arbcom.

  As anyone with even a hint of experience at DRV can tell, if this wasn't an AE action, then as a speedy deletion it would have been far out of process. I think we should go back to Arbcom, tell them so, and leave it at that.— S Marshall T/ C 09:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ S Marshall: I do not contest that this would be an invalid speedy deletion; it was not deleted under the speedy deletion rules. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• OK, but Bishonen's told the claimant to file here, and I'm immensely reluctant to undermine her by closing the filing without any action on our part. We don't have jurisdiction over AE actions. So we've got to review it on the basis of the rules that are within our ambit. I can well imagine how strange that might look from your point of view.— S Marshall T/ C 10:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ S Marshall: I don't know why Bishonen advised them to request review here; I've asked her this morning but haven't received a response yet. GoldenRing ( talk) 12:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• I'm sure she'll respond promptly. The matter does raise interesting questions about procedure and jurisdiction. To me, it seems right that deletion review is the right venue to discuss a deletion, but I feel there should be a strong presumption to support a sysop who's willing to wade into AE matters. I was appalled to see that there's a form of deletion that can be overturned at AN but not at DRV. AN is certainly not the preferable venue.— S Marshall T/ C 12:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - Goldenring's second point is irrelevant because WP:UP is, unfortunately, applied in an extremely inconsistent manner when such pages are brought to WP:MFD. Traditionally, that is the only route to seek the deletion of such pages. If deletion is going used as a form of discretionary sanction, then WP:DRV should be added to the list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#sanctions.appeals because it is by far the best venue to handle matters regarding the appropriateness of deletion; a new speedy deletion criterion would then also be due … No. That is too ill-defined and too much leeway when it comes to deletion. If a page does not meet a speedy deletion criterion and one thinks it should be deletion due to discretionary sanctions, they can make that case at WP:MFD. Deletion outside the already well-established channels is not a reasonable measure in all but perhaps the most extreme cases, which this is not. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 10:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn for now as not meeting the original deleton reason— WP:POLEMIC—while the DS discussion continues at AE. —— SerialNumber 54129 13:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn It isn't a polemic, and it did communicate information relevant and significant to the project. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion - while I have a great deal of respect for GoldenRing, this was a poor decision. I don't see how a case can be made that the page violates WP:POLEMIC in any way, as it appears that its intent is for criticism of Wikipedia, not of specific editors, and to that end it addresses the goals of the project. I share the view expressed elsewhere in this thread that the standard discretionary sanctions do not permit unilateral deletion of content. WP:AC/DS lists ways that administrators are empowered to use extraordinary measures to resolve conflicts between editors, describing editing sanctions (directed at specific editors) or page restrictions (directed at specific pages) and may block as an enforcement action if users violate these restrictions. The document does not mention deletion of content anywhere, nor is content management mentioned in the gun control case specifically, and it is longstanding convention that Arbitration does not consider content disputes. Thus I believe this deletion cannot be considered an AE action: it is out of scope. It follows that this deletion must be considered an administrator unilaterally speedy deleting a page, where no speedy deletion criteria apply (neither POLEMIC nor Arbitration enforcement are listed as available speedy criteria). It should therefore be overturned. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 15:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Note Please note that I have requested review of my actions from the arbitration committee at WP:ARCA. GoldenRing ( talk) 16:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment Per Sandstein and a review of the AE rules, I believe this DRV has been created outside of process and as such will not be participating. That being said, I do not expect the article to remain deleted. SportingFlyer T· C 22:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment Sandstein is correct. This is the wrong venue to overturn AE actions. Any admin who restores this article risks getting desysopped. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn discretionary sanctions aren't normally interpreted as allowing administrators to delete any page within the topic area which they believe violates a policy (or in this case a guideline). If I write an article about a non-notable person who has some connection to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that fact alone doesn't justify the page being speedily deleted for being non-notable. The only part of the discretionary sanctions criteria which could possibly apply here is "other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project", and I don't see why speedily deleting this page was necessary for the smooth running of the project, even if it is a violation of POLEMIC. That purpose would have been served just as adequately by sending it to MfD as normal. Hut 8.5 20:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn – The deletion of this page should be discussed at MfD. I see nothing on the page that would require, e.g., revdel or oversighting, or that meets any CSD criteria, or that otherwise provides any reason why this page shouldn't be discussed at MfD if someone wants it deleted. For example, whether it is or isn't POLEMIC is something that should be discussed by editors at MfD rather than decided by a single individual enforcing DS. Perhaps the result at MfD will be delete, but that should be decided through the normal process. Leviv  ich 20:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC) reply