User talk:Ivanvector/2019 Arbitration Committee protest

Inaccuracies

• Any deletion tagged as an arbitration enforcement action is appealable to the community at AN or AE, not just to the Committee directly. The Committee explicitly noted that we generally defer to the community there.
• Policy at WP:ADMIN#Security explicitly notes that desysopping for a compromised account may be permanent, not that it is only temporary.
• Enabling 2FA is explicitly not part of the criteria the Committee will use to determine whether an admin maintained appropriate security practices. The main thing is using a unique, secure password, which is explicitly written into policy at WP:ADMIN#Security.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Also several (as in "several incidents" of ArbCom tyranny) means more than two. – Joe (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

If we're being pedantic, then the OED includes "More than one" (def. 2d) as one of the many meanings of "several" (e.g. joint and several liability), dating back to 1530 although it does note that 4a (Of an indefinite (but not large) number exceeding two or three) is the more common current sense. ‑ Iridescent 07:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Still not exactly the Ninety-five Theses is it? – Joe (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm intending to add more. My wife leaves on a three-month cross-country trip in the morning, and I'm intending to spend more of my time on her than on Wikipedia today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion DS

Two corrections to the sequence of events:

• The page was deleted in February 2019, not April.
• A third administrator acting in good faith deleted the page again, and threatened the restoring administrator with desysopping does not seem to match the deletion log. Who was the admin giving the 'threat'? Surely not Timotheus Canens, who only deleted the page again two days ago after the ARCA, DRV and AE had all closed?

– Joe (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you, I did make some errors as I was recalling events from memory.

• The original deletion, the restoration, an enforcement appeal I did not follow, and the starting of the review, all occurred in February 2019. The clarification was also requested in February, it just took until the end of April to be resolved, as many members of the committee continuously advocated for the out-of-policy arbitration-enforcement deletion to be enforced regardless of community policy and best practice. I see that you did not and that you actively worked against arbcom-deletion-by-fiat, and I appreciate that.
• As the third administrator, no, I did not mean Timotheus Canens. It was GoldenRing, the original deleting administrator, who apparently contacted Bishonen to request she overturn the deletion; I cannot find this contact on Wikipedia so I presume it was through email. The warning was issued by Sandstein ([1]) in a different thread; that's who I was referring to as the "third administrator", but Sandstein had no administrative involvement in any of this.
• New information to me, as I stopped following the Committee's repetitive proposals to endorse the improper deletion by motion in mid-April, is that the community deletion review absolutely endorsed overturning the deletion, but it was later deleted as an Arbitration action anyway and remains deleted.
• It's an especially bad look for the Committee that this page that was deleted twice under invalid auspices of Arbitration Committee authority was a page containing criticism of Wikipedia.

I will gladly update these portions of my statement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, in my opinion it would be very much excessive to characterise Sandstein's message as a "threat": based on that diff they are just providing information about a risk that exists and how to avoid it. The threat, to the degree that's an aposite term, stems from actual AE/DS policy and ArbCom's signals regarding how the specific facts would be interpreted in this case. --Xover (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)