King of Hearts (talk | contribs) →Revised draft: opp both as worded |
Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 (talk | contribs) →Revised draft: re |
||
Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
:::::No. It is over-broad. Whatever the so-called defense, it is idiotic to make a bureaucratic rule about something that almost never occurs. On the other hand, it is a truism that things need to be removed from the pedia, as editing involves removal, and conduct, including illegal or just untoward conduct on the pedia is almost all in writing or image that sometimes has to be removed. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 00:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
:::::No. It is over-broad. Whatever the so-called defense, it is idiotic to make a bureaucratic rule about something that almost never occurs. On the other hand, it is a truism that things need to be removed from the pedia, as editing involves removal, and conduct, including illegal or just untoward conduct on the pedia is almost all in writing or image that sometimes has to be removed. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 00:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::: It is not over-broad. There is a super-big land grab at play here, by some of ArbCom. Can ArbCom arbitrarily ride roughshod over community policy and practices, namely [[WP:DEL]], [[WP:CSD]] and [[WP:DRV]]? Further, can they delegate their super-power to ride roughshod over policy to self-selecting "AE admins"? Further, can they insist that their own powers, and the actions of their delegates, are unreviewable by anyone but themselves? Each of these should be an emphatic "No". It is not even a border region. The border regions are the delegation of ArbCom power to AE admins to arbitrarily BLOCK, BAN and PROTECT, none of which hide information from the community. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
:::::: It is not over-broad. There is a super-big land grab at play here, by some of ArbCom. Can ArbCom arbitrarily ride roughshod over community policy and practices, namely [[WP:DEL]], [[WP:CSD]] and [[WP:DRV]]? Further, can they delegate their super-power to ride roughshod over policy to self-selecting "AE admins"? Further, can they insist that their own powers, and the actions of their delegates, are unreviewable by anyone but themselves? Each of these should be an emphatic "No". It is not even a border region. The border regions are the delegation of ArbCom power to AE admins to arbitrarily BLOCK, BAN and PROTECT, none of which hide information from the community. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::::{{re|SmokeyJoe}} I'm going to just be blunt here. If an editor were to create a userpage with his contact information, and ArbCom received private information that they were a pedophile that the WMF would not act on because it was unrelated to anything on-wiki, do you think ArbCom should be unable to delete that userpage as an ArbCom action (with the intent of preventing editors who may be minors from contacting this individual)? An absolute prohibition on ArbCom deleting pages would keep such a user page live, because we have no way to use normal community processes to get it deleted. To be clear, this isn't a crazy hypothetical. This is not terribly far off from events that have occurred while I've been on the Committee. I would be far more amenable to a prohibition on deletion of pages ''where no private information exists'', but at the very minimum, we need the ability to act on private information in extreme cases where community processes would be ineffective. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 03:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::If I understand correctly, the ways to remove a page from the encyclopedia, and the appeal, are: |
::If I understand correctly, the ways to remove a page from the encyclopedia, and the appeal, are: |
Revision as of 03:22, 19 March 2019
2010: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Post-AfD move review for Paradisus Judaeorum
Paradisus Judaeorum, renamed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews is currently in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December, and may interest watchers here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The instructions should require pinging of all editors involved in the delete discussion
Either previously-involved editors should not be allowed to !vote, or they should all be notified, but allowing previously-involved editors to !vote without requiring that all previously-involved editors are notified of the discussion leaves the gate open to the supporters of one side of the discussion to be involved and !vote whilst the supporters of the other side may be unaware that the discussion is ongoing. You see this particularly where a well-organised group of editors fails to get their way at AfD and then brings a deletion review in which they all engage. FOARP (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I suspect that automatically pinging all AfD participants would lead to DRV becoming a second AfD where all the AfD participants turn up and say the same things again. Hut 8.5 20:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- The point of DRV isn't to restate and rehash the original deletion discussion, with substantially the same participants and same arguments. DRV also isn't decided by a straight vote (or !vote) count.
- WP:DRVPURPOSE is pretty clear that DRV is intended primarily to deal with serious procedural errors and oversights—something that doesn't generally require the renewed participation or inspection of all the original AfD's participants to assess. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ideally the original participants shouldn't be involved in a DRV at all. The process is most effective when it's a discussion amongst uninvolved editors with experience of closing discussions and deleting pages. We can't enforce that, but mandatory pings should certainly be avoided as having the opposite effect. – Joe (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- In which case: forbid previously-involved editors from !voting. This is the best way of avoiding DRV becoming AFD 2. If that can't be enforced then at least prevent canvassing (e.g., notifying editors on specific projects etc.). If you see almost all the editors who voted on one side of a delete/keep split contributing here, but not the other side of that split, then that should signify that something is wrong. FOARP (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- You seem to be suggesting that if the article was deleted at AfD, the creator of the article couldn't comment (or vote). It's wholly unfair if he can't ex[plain why he thinks the article should be kept, and any closer would discount his !vote a little, just as they would at the AfD.
- But in practice, wha ideally happens in a reasonable DelRev, is that there is some compromise. This requires the people who care and understand the isusue to particpate again--the matters raised will usually be different than at the AfD. A second round of discussion is often very useful. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Wrap each discussion in a collapsable box by default?
When a DRV discussion is closed, it gets wrapped in class="navbox collapsible collapsed"
. I propose that we wrap all current discussions in a similar template which generates a box that defaults to the opened state. This would make things easier to navigate, especially on mobile. If there's two long discussions on the same day, it's too easy to scroll past the break between them and then it's hard to navigate back. If each discussion had it's own box, I could collapse the ones I'm not interested in. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Dealing with the markup for that will be irritating and confusing, especially for inexperienced users. In particular, we will continuously move new comments that are placed at the ends of discussions, outside the boxes. The process is already far too heavyweight and instruction-laden as-is: even admins, and the admins who are regulars at DRV who are trying to clean up after them, regularly get it wrong. —Cryptic 17:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Should DRV participants be asked to declare their prior involvement?
Should DRV participants be asked to declare their prior involvement? Eg “!voted delete/keep”, “article creator”, “XfD nominator”.
This comes up in individual DRV discussions from time to time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'd have thought it would be obvious to anyone who did their due diligence before participating in the DRV. – Joe (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- It is not unreasonable on first pass of a review to read the nomination at face value. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm more versed with MRV then DRV, and I'd say it's a common courtesy to indicate which way you !voted, but not obligatory. If you want to make it obligatory you'd probably have to start an RFC. — Amakuru (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- What Amakuru said. It's a courtesy but I wouldn't expect it. Maybe a supplementary note somewhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- It is not unreasonable on first pass of a review to read the nomination at face value. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I edited the instructions: "As a courtesy to other DRV participants, indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic." Let's see how that runs. This would be a simple improvement in habits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- The change to the instructions seems like a good thing. Not that I have any faith it'll do anything useful, since as far as I can tell, nobody actually reads the instructions :-( -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Very few read the rules very often. Newcomers read the rules sometimes, and they sometimes express confusion over whether they are allowed to participate. I think it is good to keep instructions reflecting best practice, but changes to best practice here will result from the regulars leading by example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- When people don't read the rules, the solution isn't to add more rules. —Cryptic 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Very few read the rules very often. Newcomers read the rules sometimes, and they sometimes express confusion over whether they are allowed to participate. I think it is good to keep instructions reflecting best practice, but changes to best practice here will result from the regulars leading by example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CREEP. The main problem at DRV is people repeating AfD arguments rather focussing on the procedural issue(s). Getting this right is more important than providing a detailed history of one's involvement. Anyone assessing a DRV ought to look at the discussion in question and it will then be obvious who the participants were, if it matters. Andrew D. (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support I believe I am supporting the addition to the instructions above. This is something I do anyways - I feel uncomfortable !voting at DRV when I've participated in the Afd - and while the comments can still be useful, DRV !votes from AfD participants are really only useful in the rare event the DRV !voter agrees with the close when the close went against their AfD !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- This is instruction creep on a page whose instructions are already four times too long, has been rejected in slightly different forms many times before (example, example), and is useless and distracting in practice (example, example). If we're going to pretend it's best practice for people to declare supposed biases between their vote and their reasoning - you know, the part that actually matters - we'd be better off encouraging things like "(I always endorse keep AFDs and never overturn delete AFDs)" or "(I always endorse G11s of cryptocurrency-related subjects)". —Cryptic 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I feel that although there would be advantages to this rule, there's also the risk of discouraging people from participating in the AfD for controversial subjects, because we've implied that not participating in the AfD strengthens their voice in the DRV. So on balance, I'm with Cryptic.—S Marshall T/C 21:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Occassionaly we see people say they hesitated to contribute to DRV because they weren’t sure they were allowed. If some said that, more didn’t say anything. I think giving the instruction on declaring involvement serves to give them, the worried ones, permission to participate. Note that the wording is not a requirement, big difference. For anyone who doesn’t (re)read the instructions, no harm. If it doesn’t work out, no harm, but on a number of occasions people have expressed issues with people commenting without declaring prior involvement/bias. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- DRV commenting instrcutions. New text: “Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic“. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would expect anyone participating in a Del Rev--and certainly any admin who closes one--to first look at the AfD. How else can they possibly understand what the appeal is about? DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Should I not have done this?
IronGargoyle, whose opinion I very much respect, has said that he feels I should not have --- err, hatted --- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 24. I would welcome other input, and if I was wrong to do this then I'm very sincerely sorry for doing it.—S Marshall T/C 14:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: You say it isn't a closure but, as IronGargoyle said, it really is. I would not say that the discussion has moved to ARCA, rather a related discussion has been opened there. If I were you I'd reverse the closure and leave the DRV open until the ARCA concludes. – Joe (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Very well: I've self-reverted. I'm disappointed to see that the ARCA is in the process of reaching the most poorly thought-out of the decisions available to them, in which any deletion can be inoculated against community scrutiny -- as soon as the deleter uses the "Arbitration enforcement" label, all supervision will be reserved to Arbcom. :(—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- S Marshall, I agree with you; perhaps there should be a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Leviv ich 20:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Very well: I've self-reverted. I'm disappointed to see that the ARCA is in the process of reaching the most poorly thought-out of the decisions available to them, in which any deletion can be inoculated against community scrutiny -- as soon as the deleter uses the "Arbitration enforcement" label, all supervision will be reserved to Arbcom. :(—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree that closing/hatnoting/whatevering this was a sub-optimal decision. Thank you for self-reverting. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions says:
Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, 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.
The dispute is whether "any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary" includes the deletion of a page as part of the discretionary enforcement process. I would like to submit an RfC to the community asking a similar question to the one the arbitrators are answering at the clarification request:
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
The RfC would amend Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to reflect the community consensus. I would follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification and amendment about amending the Arbitration policy: "Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing" by asking the community to sign a petition to hold this RfC. Pinging current arbitrators AGK (talk · contribs), BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), Joe Roe (talk · contribs), KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs), Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs), RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs), SilkTork (talk · contribs) and former arbitrators DGG (talk · contribs), Doug Weller (talk · contribs), and Drmies (talk · contribs) who participated in the ARCA since you are more familiar with the arbitration process. Is this permitted and where should the RfC be held? Should the petition signing process start only after the ARCA is closed?
Here is my proposed wording for the RfC:
- RfC about deletion under discretionary sanctions enforcement
Are admins permitted to delete pages as part of the discretionary sanctions enforcement process?
A) No
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions is amended to say (inserted text underlined):Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, 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. Discretionary sanctions enforcement does not cover deletion of pages. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
B) Yes
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions is amended to say (inserted text underlined):Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, page deletion, 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. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
C) Yes, but only per deletion policy
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions is amended to say (inserted text underlined):Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, page deletion (only when pages are eligible for deletion under the deletion policy), 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. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
The RfC's proposed wording can be improved. Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 24#User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles participants and closer: SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), RoySmith (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Pudeo (talk · contribs), GoldenRing (talk · contribs), Godsy (talk · contribs), S Marshall (talk · contribs), Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs), Simonm223 (talk · contribs), Ivanvector (talk · contribs), SportingFlyer (talk · contribs), A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs), Levivich (talk · contribs), and Spartaz (talk · contribs) and ARCA participants Bishonen (talk · contribs), Black Kite (talk · contribs), RexxS (talk · contribs), Cryptic (talk · contribs), GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs), Xymmax (talk · contribs), and Wnt (talk · contribs) in case you have any thoughts about improving the wording or how to formulate the RfC.
Cunard (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Cunard, yes, something like that. I think ArbCom should be left to make their resolution at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Gun control. Ideally, User:Jimbo Wales will comment too, as it is his reserve powers delegated to ArbCom that they are delegating to "AE Admins" to override policy and community practice. We can give them some time, because this is not an emergency. Indeed, it is the exaggeration of emergency that leads to hasty power grabs at the expense of a collegiate community working towards WP:PPP.
- A follow up RfC is probably needed. As things are looking now, ArbCom is divided and is voting on whether ArbCom is claiming the power to ignore deletion policy with no external accountability. What is the limit of scope of ArbCom? Previously, ArbCom was very clear about steering clear of content and community policy. Recently, WP:ACDS has appeared as a wholesale rewriting of policy and practice on blocking, banning, page protection, etc. WP:ACDS is unashamed ArbCom written policy. ArbCom should not even have power to vote on its scope. A well participated RfC is needed. The answers may be complicated. ArbCom's ability to write policy to allow any admin to delete articles across a broad range of topics is obviously too far. The ability to delegate "AE admins" to protect pages, regardless of consensus at WP:RFPP, is offensive, though less so. The practice of thoroughness and transparency before declaring a WP:BAN on edge cases, that seems pretty reasonable. Does ArbCom has any responsibility to ensure that their practice is in harmony with Wikipedia:Banning policy, or is ArbCom sacrosanct regardless? Are we going to have to vet future ArbCom candidates on their interpretation of content policy in contentious areas? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is no functional difference between A and C. If deletion can be otherwise done under existing policy, then there is no need to tie a ribbon around the thing and call it an AE action, that is, unless you want to add that the appropriate venue for appeal is AE. Now that comes off as unnecessarily bureaucratic and at least slightly stupid, and in the current case, it seems there is general agreement that DRV was the appropriate venue for appeal. Beyond that, carving out some "super special" function of AE as a venue for review of a "super special" type of deletion functionally elevates the opinions of admins in a deletion discussion, which is to say a content issue, rather than a behavioral issue. (Rather than just casting one supervote, we'll get everyone together and cast a bunch of them and tally up which supervotes win.)
- Of course we also could consider dropping the whole act as a community, maybe some time in the near future, and admit that the fact we have to debate whether AE can be used as an exception to policy indicates that in every possibly meaningful sense, that AE is a policy, and one that substantially rewrites actual policy based on community consensus, rather than carrying on with this whole bit about the transitive property of the divine right of ArbCom to unilaterally empower certain members of the community to do what they wan't and to hell with community consensus. GMGtalk 13:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- An RfC would not be an appropriate venue for a change to the arbitration policy, because such a change wouldn't be based on traditional consensus. You would need a "petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing" if you wanted to go the non-ArbCom route. You could start that petition here and advertise it wherever you care to. I would not label it an RfC, because opposition essentially doesn't matter: If you got 100 supports and 5000 opposes, it would still be submitted for ratification, by way of an extreme example. Having said all that, I heavily discourage a modification of the arbitration policy to restrict the Arbitration Committee from deleting pages or delegating the authority to delete pages to others. I think that is potentially harmful when you consider some very fringe things we occasionally come in contact with (child protection, for one). I'd recommend letting the ARCA run its course for now. ~ Rob13Talk 14:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, I just read your wording for the RfC, Cunard. That would not be a valid RfC at all, per WP:CONEXCEPT. In particular, you cannot directly amend Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, since it is an arbitration decision. You can only limit the scope of ArbCom by adding to or changing WP:ARBPOL. The change you're looking for is probably an addition to the section prohibiting creating policy by fiat, explicitly noting that ArbCom may not delete pages contrary to the deletion policy or authorize others to do so. I have a feeling you're about to get that result at ARCA in a much more organic way without setting a potentially dangerous precedent that would prevent us from acting efficiently in emergency situations, though, so I still encourage you to wait for that. ~ Rob13Talk 14:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe this traditionally goes something like:
- What about that policy you just changed?
- ArbCom can't change policy.
- But you just made a set of rules to follow instead of policy? Isn't that policy?
- No.
- Why not?
- Because ArbCom can't change policy.
Proceed to step one. Repeat.
- GMGtalk 15:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe this traditionally goes something like:
- Actually, I just read your wording for the RfC, Cunard. That would not be a valid RfC at all, per WP:CONEXCEPT. In particular, you cannot directly amend Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, since it is an arbitration decision. You can only limit the scope of ArbCom by adding to or changing WP:ARBPOL. The change you're looking for is probably an addition to the section prohibiting creating policy by fiat, explicitly noting that ArbCom may not delete pages contrary to the deletion policy or authorize others to do so. I have a feeling you're about to get that result at ARCA in a much more organic way without setting a potentially dangerous precedent that would prevent us from acting efficiently in emergency situations, though, so I still encourage you to wait for that. ~ Rob13Talk 14:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Responding to Cunard, as I was pinged. I think the best way to proceed is as Joe suggested to the OP – suspend this discussion until the ARCA has concluded. AGK ■ 18:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Responding to ping, thanks to Cunard for putting this together. I agree it should be Yes/No (just options A and B), and that it makes sense to let ARCA conclude before deciding if anything further is needed. Leviv ich 18:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, it makes perfect sense to wait and see. However, I also agree with Cunard's impulse that if this results in a change in deletion policy there should be community discussion as to whether it supports such an expansion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I also agree it should be just A and B. Three-way RfCs have an unfortunate tendency to be inconclusive. .( I strongly suggest to arb com that it postpone its discussions until the conclusion of the RfC, and let individual members comment here instead. Discussing something at two venues is always a poor idea. If they insist on going first, we can move this discussion to arb policy.) DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- If ArbCom were to take a formal vote to wait for this proposed RfC, that would be awesome, because this is policy and community process question, and ArbCom is not meant to write policy. At this moment, the ball is in their court, the RfC should not run while ArbCom is mid-deliberation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- My feeling is that if existing policy does not clearly support an option other than A, to the point where an RfC would be needed to clarify the issue, then this proceeding can be closed with the understanding that deleting pages is not part of AE at this time. Any further argument here is simply a behavioral question of whether the situation was unclear enough to excuse an admin's mistake. Arbitrators should be limited to "enumerated powers" delegated by the community, so lack of clarity should be taken as lack of authority. And if an admin is taken to arbitration, this shouldn't become a special opportunity to showcase a call for changes in policy to support how he was doing things. An RfC like this should be proposed (if at all) through the usual Village Pump mechanism by editors who support the change. Wnt (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't blame the admin in this case. Though I think it was reasonably clear already, it was nonetheless a possible misunderstanding. We deal with misunderstandings by clarifying, not by taking people to arbcom. I think this discussion is sufficient clarification. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Although I can't think of any real world examples where this possible power to delete a page under AE could ever have been needed, I am able to come up with hypothetical scenarios where it might be. But in all these hypothetical cases that I can imagine, there would be an applicable speedy deletion criterion already and the sysop's decision would be resoundingly endorsed at DRV. I'd welcome counterexamples.
Ideally we need to change the rules to say that all deletion decisions are reviewable at DRV. If we decide that there's some justification for an Arbitration Enforcement deletion criterion, then we need to say that in such cases DRV's role is to produce an advisory outcome for Arbcom to confirm.—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Revised draft
Thank you all for the comments. I agree that any petition to amend the arbitration policy should wait until the arbitrators have concluded their discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Gun control: Arbitrator views and discussion (permanent link). Incorporating the feedback from BU Rob13 that the community cannot directly amend Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, I will solicit feedback from the community about two draft petitions that modify Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. I am also incorporating feedback from Levivich and DGG that it should just be a binary choice of Yes/No.
Here are the draft petitions:
- Petitions about the Committee's jurisdiction over authorizing deletion, undeletion, and redirect of pages
Does the Committee have jurisdiction over authorizing deletion, undeletion, and redirect of pages?
A) Yes
Petition 1: The "Policy and precedent" section of the arbitration policy is amended to add the following underlined text:
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. The Committee has jurisdiction over authorizing the deletion, undeletion, or redirection of pages in any namespace.
B) No
Petition 2: The "Policy and precedent" section of the arbitration policy is amended to add the following underlined text:
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. The Committee does not have jurisdiction over authorizing the deletion, undeletion, or redirection of pages in any namespace.
S Marshall makes a good point about holding an RfC to say that all deletions, including those made under Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, must be reviewable at DRV. This RfC should be held to clarify whether deletions under community-authorised sanctions such as Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 9#Universa Blockchain Protocol can be reviewable at DRV. The RfC cannot mandate that deletions done under discretionary sanctions must be reviewable at DRV since it does not amend the arbitration policy.
BU Rob13 wrote that prohibiting the arbitration committee from deleting pages creates "a potentially dangerous precedent that would prevent us from acting efficiently in emergency situations". Like S Marshall, I cannot think of any examples where a speedy deletion criterion doesn't already exist to handle the situation. If it is an emergency like "privacy violations, child protection, copyright infringement or systematic harassment", the Wikimedia Foundation should be involved and can delete the page under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G9. Office actions. If the emergency involves a WP:BLP, then the page could be deleted under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking. If an emergency is not covered under WP:CSD, an admin can delete the page under WP:IAR and request review at DRV where the community would strongly uphold the deletion. But I cannot think of any emergencies not covered under WP:CSD and like S Marshall, I welcome counterexamples.
Pinging editors who responded to my post: SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs), AGK (talk · contribs), Levivich (talk · contribs), Xymmax (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), Wnt (talk · contribs), and S Marshall (talk · contribs), to notify you of my reply. I welcome feedback about improving the wording of the draft petitions.
Cunard (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Removed "and any action must comply with the deletion policy" from petition 1 to match the "Yes" answer to the question. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cunard: I'd like to emphasize that even those of us who think the Committee should have discretion to require the deletion of a page (outside of mainspace, for obvious reasons - we do not rule on content) would not want a statement in the arbitration policy giving us jurisdiction over any deletion. That's a straw-man. We're saying that, where a page falls within the scope of the Arbitration Committee for other reasons, deletion is theoretically on the table in certain extreme scenarios. I agree that the WMF should often be involved in emergency situations. The reality is that they often do not act until it is impossible for them not to. One recent case comes to mind in particular where the WMF did not act where I could see the potential for an ArbCom deletion of a userpage, in a slightly different set of circumstances. Moreover, removing deletion entirely from our jurisdiction through a provision in the Arbitration Policy would make it impossible for us to oversee the Oversight team, since they have the ability to delete pages as suppressions pursuant to WP:OS, and we're currently tasked with their supervision. ~ Rob13Talk 17:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think the proposal is overbroad. The issue recently was should a single admin have discretion to delete as an AE action, so the proposal should just address that: 'Arbitration enforcement discretionary sanctions by a single administrator do not include deletion, although they may include other forms of removal.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is not overbroad. The defense of this by members of arb com includes their retention of the power to delete pages as an arb action, which can only be reversed by arb com. No need for this has ever been demonstrated, even hypothetically. Arb com should have the power it needs, but no more And among the powers it has and needs is the ability to do an emergency desysop, which can deal with any rogue admin actions. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- No. It is over-broad. Whatever the so-called defense, it is idiotic to make a bureaucratic rule about something that almost never occurs. On the other hand, it is a truism that things need to be removed from the pedia, as editing involves removal, and conduct, including illegal or just untoward conduct on the pedia is almost all in writing or image that sometimes has to be removed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is not over-broad. There is a super-big land grab at play here, by some of ArbCom. Can ArbCom arbitrarily ride roughshod over community policy and practices, namely WP:DEL, WP:CSD and WP:DRV? Further, can they delegate their super-power to ride roughshod over policy to self-selecting "AE admins"? Further, can they insist that their own powers, and the actions of their delegates, are unreviewable by anyone but themselves? Each of these should be an emphatic "No". It is not even a border region. The border regions are the delegation of ArbCom power to AE admins to arbitrarily BLOCK, BAN and PROTECT, none of which hide information from the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: I'm going to just be blunt here. If an editor were to create a userpage with his contact information, and ArbCom received private information that they were a pedophile that the WMF would not act on because it was unrelated to anything on-wiki, do you think ArbCom should be unable to delete that userpage as an ArbCom action (with the intent of preventing editors who may be minors from contacting this individual)? An absolute prohibition on ArbCom deleting pages would keep such a user page live, because we have no way to use normal community processes to get it deleted. To be clear, this isn't a crazy hypothetical. This is not terribly far off from events that have occurred while I've been on the Committee. I would be far more amenable to a prohibition on deletion of pages where no private information exists, but at the very minimum, we need the ability to act on private information in extreme cases where community processes would be ineffective. ~ Rob13Talk 03:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is not over-broad. There is a super-big land grab at play here, by some of ArbCom. Can ArbCom arbitrarily ride roughshod over community policy and practices, namely WP:DEL, WP:CSD and WP:DRV? Further, can they delegate their super-power to ride roughshod over policy to self-selecting "AE admins"? Further, can they insist that their own powers, and the actions of their delegates, are unreviewable by anyone but themselves? Each of these should be an emphatic "No". It is not even a border region. The border regions are the delegation of ArbCom power to AE admins to arbitrarily BLOCK, BAN and PROTECT, none of which hide information from the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- No. It is over-broad. Whatever the so-called defense, it is idiotic to make a bureaucratic rule about something that almost never occurs. On the other hand, it is a truism that things need to be removed from the pedia, as editing involves removal, and conduct, including illegal or just untoward conduct on the pedia is almost all in writing or image that sometimes has to be removed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is not overbroad. The defense of this by members of arb com includes their retention of the power to delete pages as an arb action, which can only be reversed by arb com. No need for this has ever been demonstrated, even hypothetically. Arb com should have the power it needs, but no more And among the powers it has and needs is the ability to do an emergency desysop, which can deal with any rogue admin actions. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, the ways to remove a page from the encyclopedia, and the appeal, are:
- And the intent is to strike #4 from the list? If so, I would suggest adding to ARBPOL something like this:
"Procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced" do not include deletion of pages in any namespace.
Leviv ich 17:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)- (1)The consensus here seems to be that 4 is already not included. The purpose of the RfC is to formally ratify that, and it is necessary to do so because of opposition from the people currently using or justifying it.
- (2) The practice the last few years while I was on arb com was that oversight deletions are reversed by consensus of the oversighters as expressed on their list . This of course includes the arbs. If "supervise" gives the arbs any special power here, I have not known them to use it. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose both as vague. On the specific issue I consider the deletion of User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles to be out of policy, and an incorrect application of WP:AE. Overall, my thoughts are this: Of course pages can be deleted under existing policy, regardless of whether it relates to Arbcom. Arbcom should be allowed to authorized enforcing admins to delete pages in a consistent and objective manner similar to WP:CSD; Arbcom should not be allowed to authorize admins to unilaterally delete pages based on their (the admins') discretion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)