The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Once again, the reason for the block is false on its face - I very much did defend and argue for my conduct. As I said at AE, I discussed the reverts with the users who had made the edits I was reverting, sometimes even getting an explicit statement of agreement. The restriction was put in place to prevent edit-warring and reverting without discussion, not to prevent the reversion of drive-by destructive edits - which, when I reverted, I still explained fully in the edit summary. In fact, Newyorkbrad has specifically stated in the past, a propos of my restriction, that a talkpage thread which merely duplicates the contents of an edit summary should not be necessary.
Moreover, the filing was pretty obviously bad-faith to begin with (Slugger falsely claimed that I wasn't discussing reverts on article talk which I did in fact discuss, and had never edited any of those articles before). My conduct was compliant with WP policy and with my own editing restrictions, and AE is not a block dispenser for winning what other users, oddly, seem to be seeing as personal battles rather than collaborative encyclopedia-building.
In light of the fact that this is not the first time that Sandstein is blocking me on the supposed basis that I did not say things that I in fact did say, and of Sandstein's clear misinterpretation of the restriction, I'm pinging the admins involved in creating the restriction and the discussion that led to it. @DeltaQuad: @Salvio giuliano: @Courcelles: @Euryalus: @AGK: @Seraphimblade: @Doug Weller: @Guerillero: @Callanecc: @Bishonen: @Newyorkbrad: @Thryduulf:
–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Roscelese
Result of the appeal by Roscelese
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
(Copied from Rosceleses' user talk) I've taken a look in detail at the four edits brought up in the AE report. The restriction specifies that Roscelese must discuss any content reversions on the talk page, with the exceptions of blatant BLP violations or vandalism. So, the question at hand is whether the reverts were discussed on the talk page, and if not, whether the edits reverted were blatant BLP violations or vandalism. (It would of course also matter whether the articles edited fall under the scope of the restriction, but Roscelese has not disputed that they do and they all seem clearly to be within it.)
*The first edit in the AE report was an edit to The Silent Scream: [2] on 24 April 2019. This edit was not followed by a discussion on the talk page, as Roscelese's last edit to Talk:The Silent Scream was on 11 November 2017. Roscelese's edit summary was "rv - neutral language". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this was a content revert and required discussion. This edit violated the restriction.
*The second edit was to LGBT rights opposition on 23 April 2019: [3]. The last edit to Talk:LGBT rights opposition was on 27 December 2017, so Roscelese did not follow up this edit with a discussion on the talk page. The rationale for the revert by Roscelese was "Even if it is decided to mention the "ex-gay" movement in this article, this promo is not the way to do it". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this would require a talk page discussion. This edit violated the restriction.
*The third revert was to Homosexuality and religion on 18 April 2019: [4]. The last edit to Talk:Homosexuality and religion was on 3 March 2019, so Roscelese did not follow this edit up with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert was "Rv - increases reliance on interpretation of primary sources, does not add any new information, just jargon". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction.
The fourth edit was to Abortion and mental health on 11 April 2019: [5]. *The last edit to Talk:Abortion and mental health was on 21 January 2019, so Roscelese did not follow the revert with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert is "These claims are not in the NEJM article". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction.
Roscelese's restriction requires that content-based reverts are to be followed up with a rationale and discussion on the article talk page, not somewhere else, so discussing it on a user talk page or a different article's talk page is not sufficient as the discussion on the article talk page is intended to involve anyone interested, not just the particular user who made the edit. These four edits were content-based reverts (even if judged only by Roscelese's own rationales for them) and all of them lack followup on the talk page, so they were correctly found to be violations. I would therefore decline the appeal and find the block to be valid. That you find the discussion to be "pointless" does not change the requirement to start it nonetheless. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not pinged. If the issue was purely related to the first two diffs (we use "anti-abortion", not "pro-life", and the second one's just promotional, even if it doesn't rise to vandalism) I might think a two-week block was a little harsh, but the second two diffs are fairly obvious. So, I concur. Black Kite (talk)13:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I share Black Kite's assessment of the first two diffs. I also think that the fourth diff, viewed in its context, is quite defensible: it reverts a previously reverted deceptive IP addition using a bogus doi, and the IP restoring that edit just expanded that doi into a reference citing AGF. The only reasonable inference is that the second IP has neither actually looked at the linked reference nor even the previous IP's edit summary (which claims to rely on a 2017 review when that reference is from 2006). Even when viewed in the most charitable light, this is grossly irresponsible source misuse that would earn the user a topic ban from the area. I do agree with Seraphimblade's assessment of the third diff, though it was a week old at the time of the report. Taken together, I find the two-week block to be on the harsh side and would have preferred a lesser sanction. That said, I cannot say that the sanction actually imposed is outside admin discretion, and I therefore agree with my colleagues that this appeal should be declined. T. Canens (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave
Appeal declined. The requisite "clear and substantial consensus of [...] uninvolved administrators at AE" to overturn this discretionary sanction is not present. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
I feel that the closing statement "Springee, Trekphiler, RAF910 and Dlthewave are warned not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities.", which appears to be copy-and-pasted from WP:POLEMIC, is not an accurate assessment of consensus among the admins who participated in the discussion. Among other things, it implies that all four editors are equally at fault, which does not appear to be what the admins intended in their support for a logged warning. Although Goldenring did delete a page in my userspace under WP:POLEMIC, there was no discussion of my "attacking" or "vilifying" anyone and one admin even stated "Dlthewave is in fact engaged in appropriate editing and discussion." There was no proposal to issue a logged warning to Dlthewave. (As a sidenote, I also feel that issuing a polemic warning to the other three involved editors instead of a warning related to talk page conduct was entirely out of left field, but that is something for them to address in their own appeals if they choose to pursue them.)
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.
Although this deletion may have been within Goldenring's editorial discretion, I would like it to be reviewed by other admins and preferably discussed by the community at Miscellany for Deletion. –dlthewave☎17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13:"If there is supposed misconduct here, take it to ANI, file a case request, hand out DS warnings and then take it to AE, etc" I've done all of those things, and you can read about it in the Signpost if you like. I've taken pains to focus on big-picture patterns instead of individual editor behavior, and no editors are named in the userspace page, however I think it's fair for me to be able to maintain a list of examples to back up the assertions that I made in the Signpost. –dlthewave☎20:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I'm not sure where you got the idea that there were no actionable requests. A few examples: [6][for_72bikers] [7]. You will note that this appeal is actually directly connected to the most recent AE request. More examples can be found in the AE log under Gun Control. –dlthewave☎22:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sandstein
After rereading User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, I agree with the appellant that the page was not (quite) a violation of WP:POLEMIC because it did not name editors and did not make allegations of misconduct, except as implied in the title ("whitewashing"), but that alone probably doesn't merit a warning. Because that page was the reason for my warning, I am striking it and recommend that GoldenRing (talk·contribs) undelete the page. A case can perhaps be made for its deletion on grounds of copyright / attribution, but that's a matter for the deletion process. Sandstein 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment here, I've also withdrawn the warning with respect to Springee. Clearly I should have read the enforcement request more carefully; sorry for that. I think that we should be more careful in the future as to whether or not to entertain enforcement requests directed at multiple editors. Sandstein 22:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Bishonen, GoldenRing is correct that an action that has been labeled as an AE action may only be reviewed by way of the process described at WP:AC/DS#Appeals, that is, here at AE, or at AN or ARCA – but not at DRV. Bishonen, I recommend that you undo your temporary restoration of the page for the purpose of the DRV, or you may be desysopped for undoing an AE action out of process, as described at WP:AC/DS#Modifications by administrators. Any admin who acts on the currently ongoing DRV by overturning the deletion may likewise be desysopped. Sandstein 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Springee
I'm clearly an involved editor. As I said before I think Dlthewave has a very strong POV on this topic and I frequently disagree with them. However, when push comes to shove, I don't think on good faith they viewed the page as a POLMIC. For what it's worth, I would support reverting Dlthewave's warning. Springee (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other than supporting lifting of sanctions for Dlthewave, I've largely stayed out of this discussion. However, I think Dlthewave is contradicting themselves. In reply to BU Rob 13 they said, "however I think it's fair for me to be able to maintain a list of examples to back up the assertions that I made in the Signpost". As one of the editors quoted in the article in question I asked that my comments be removed [[8]]. I specifically noted the link between the Signpost article and this user page. Dlthewave declined noting in part, "any link between it and our joint Signpost submission is tenuous at best." [[9]]. This contradicts the claims made in reply to BU Rob 13. Furthermore, it specifically accuses others of "whitewashing" vs simply making unsound arguments. I view it as something that either needs to be acted on or deleted. In a similar vein I take a dim view of the "firearms" reaction list on the "Hall of Fame" page [[10]]. Collecting material like this is needlessly antagonistic even though I don't think that is Dlthewave's intent. Springee (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by GoldenRing
I disagree with Sandstein above and stand by this action. Dlthewave has stated right here that the purpose of this page is to document long-term problematic editing and policy is clear that such material is allowed only for dispute resolution and when used in a timely manner. I don't see the practical difference between, "so-and-so said this" (which the appellant seems to admit would be disallowed) and "someone said this and here's a link showing who it was" which is what they've actually done. GoldenRing (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: I'm not sure why you've suggested deletion review here. AE actions cannot be overturned at deletion review, only at AE, AN or ARCA. Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action? GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave: I will reiterate here what I've said on the deletion review: if you wish to use this material for valid dispute resolution (probably either an ANI or arbitration case request) and can outline a reasonable timeline for doing so (either on-wiki or privately by email), then I will self-revert my enforcement action. GoldenRing (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally involved. I just found out about the removal of DLThewave's excellent summary of the challenges faced to bring firearms into compliance with WP:N including the way that a wikiproject has tried to present their MOS suggestions as policy. I've said as much at another venue, but this is definitely not a violation of WP:POLEMIC and should be undeleted for the valuable resource it is. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dlthewave
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I commented in the initial thread, so I'm not sure whether my response should appear in this section, or above with GoldenRing's and Sandstein's. The deletion of Dlthewave's userspace subpage was arguably appropriate under WP:POLEMIC, and within reasonable admin discretion on GoldenRing's part. While I'm not sure I would have done the same, I'm comfortable leaving the page deleted. That said, I don't think a formal warning to Dlthewave is warranted; there wasn't really any support for such a warning amongst uninvolved admins in the previous thread, and it seems like overkill. The proper response to a potentially polemical userspace subpage is to delete it, which has been done. There wasn't any convincing evidence of a pattern of behavior warranting a logged warning on Dlthewave's part, at least not that I saw.
Regarding the logged warnings, I do take Springee's point that they perhaps paint the remaining 3 editors with an overly broad brush. There are clearly gradations of concerning behavior, with Springee on the mild end and Trekphiler/RAF910 showing a much more sustained and problematic battleground attitude. I'll leave it up to other admins whether we should modify the warning to exclude Springee, but it is worth considering while we're here. MastCellTalk21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is definitely a confusing situation. Reading the deleted page, it does seem borderline WP:POLEMIC so, perhaps, GoldenRing was right in deleting it. But, Dlthewave brings up a good point. If they do plan on making a future case then how else can they keep a record of the edits they see as forming a pattern? They could do it off-wiki of course, but isn't it better to be open about one's activities? While the deletion was within admin discretion perhaps, in cases of this nature, it is better to leave them as is with a note to the editor that they can't leave it sticking around for too long. Imo, the warning should be withdrawn. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about deleting the whitewashing essay; I can't seem to make up my mind. Suggest dlthewave take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. An admin should be asked to temporarily undelete the page for purposes of discussion as soon as the DR is opened. But I don't have any trouble agreeing with Sandstein, Springee, MastCell, and Regentspark that dlthewave's warning should be withdrawn and struck from the log, and Sandstein has already done so. Bishonen | talk01:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Your deletion can't be overturned at Deletion review, GoldenRing? Are you sure? In that case, obviously I suggested it because I didn't know any better. A bit of bad luck that apparently nobody who did know saw my suggestion for Deletion review here at AE, some 20 hours before Dlthewave actually opened the deletion review. I'm not sure what should be the next step, considering there is quite a lot of discussion at the review already, and some disagreement about how to proceed. But whatever action is taken, rest assured I won't feel "undermined" by it, as somebody suggested there. I'm personally fine with whatever, although I want to apologize to Dlthewave for potentially complicating his situation. As for "Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action?", no, I haven't. If you're referring to my temporary undeletion of the page, for the deletion review only and with the front page covered by a template, per the instructions here, I can only ask you not to be so silly. If you're talking about my giving Dlthewave bad advice, well, I've explained how that came about (=ignorance on my part). Bishonen | talk12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
What an absolute joy you are to work with, Sandstein. It's a wonder more admins don't flock to help out at AE, where honest mistakes get met with immediate threats of desysopping. I do want to point out that there's a pretty clear consensus at DRV that the page doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC. @GoldenRing:, do I understand correctly that you are not going to recognize that consensus because it is being discussed on the Wrong Page(TM)? If this is the case, then I suppose we should tell everyone at DRV their opinions are not wanted there, re-delete the page, and then have the exact same discussion here. Or alternately, GR could rescind the deletion.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I not only agree that restoring the page for deletion review is not an abuse of process, but that deleting the page via AE would be an abuse of process. The way to remove userspace essays that are contrary to policy is MfD., and review of decisions there is at Deletion Review. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing, do you intend to delete under AE every page in an area subject to DS (such as AP or PIA) that you think might arguably be the result of an action that violation an arb ruling,? DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I have just noticed, Sandstein, that your closing at the AE Discussion used the wording of the arb case "for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, " but the entire discussion above about whether it violated POLEMIC is irrelevant, because the page is obviously related to WP. And the arb com wording continued " attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. " I do not see any editors named on the page in question. It was discussing edits. (Of course the editors were implied, because the statements wee linked, but nothing about the editors is question is said on the page, only about the edits. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has been stalled for a month, the deletion review was closed as consensus to overturn, and we need to proceed in one or other way. I see consensus to withdraw the warning, and this has been already done by Sandstein. The situation is more difficult with the deletion of the page, but if I take into account all opinions at DRV and also that all uninvolved admins here who commented after the close of the DRV supported undeletion, I would say there is consensus to undelete. I will wait a couple of days before closing, may be somebody wanted to comment and forgot or overlooked this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support User:Ymblanter's idea of undoing the AE deletion of the page, based on the apparent consensus of admins in this thread. Arbcom is still debating whether 'AE deletion' can ever be considered to be an option, but there is no risk of any conflict with Arbcom if the present deletion is simply undone on the merits. (We would be closing as though AE deletion was really allowed, but this *particular* deletion was reversed through the normal AE appeal process). It appears that a deletion review has already occurred which supported restoration of the page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed closed it as overturn, and subsequently got strong objections from Goldenring concerning the restoration of the page (see their talk page), which I disagree with, but it is good to give another administrator a chance to deal with this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the votes on the pending motion, we must proceed on the assumption that deletion of a page is allowed as a discretionary sanction. In my view, POLEMIC falls on the conduct side of the conduct/content divide: deciding whether a user page violates that guideline does not require one to make decisions regarding any encyclopedic content. Therefore, deleting a user page under POLEMIC does not fall into the category of deletions that may impermissibly settle a content dispute. Having considered the comments at the DRV to the extent they addressed POLEMIC (as opposed to the process issue), and after independently reviewing the page, I cannot say that GoldenRing's interpretation and application of that guideline is outside reasonable admin discretion, and that's all that is needed to sustain a discretionary sanction. Decline as to the deletion. As to the warning, the appeal is moot. T. Canens (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline this. I think it is within administrator discretion to consider this a violation of WP:POLEMIC. In particular, I note that the editor who create the page has stated that they intend to use it as background for an opinion piece in the Signpost. The spirit behind POLEMIC rather clearly is intended to prevent editors from putting others "on blast" without making a formal report at a noticeboard. I believe compiling a long list of diffs on-wiki in order to write an opinion piece that attacks a particular editor or group of editors is plainly at odds with this spirit. If there is supposed misconduct here, take it to ANI, file a case request, hand out DS warnings and then take it to AE, etc. Compiling a list of supposed wrongdoing and then litigating it in the court of public opinion at the Signpost is contrary to the spirit behind POLEMIC. All of this is without comment on whether the editor is correct in the pattern they're highlighting; it doesn't particularly matter whether they are correct when it comes to whether it violates POLEMIC. ~ Rob13Talk03:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There’s definitely been no case request during my time on the Committee, unless it came during a period of inactivity for me. But ignoring that, if all venues have not found those diffs to be actionable, turning to the Signpost to make assertions about a behavioral issue - whether editors are named or not - goes against the spirit of POLEMIC. ~ Rob13Talk21:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... and if they were actioned on, then the issue is resolved, and the list of diffs shouldn't be stored forever in user space to further litigate the issue unless new behavior emerges. ~ Rob13Talk16:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This appeal has been open for more than two months now and needs a resolution one way or the other. It takes a "clear and substantial consensus" of uninvolved administrators to grant an appeal at AE, and I'm not seeing it. Barring objections in the next 24 hours, I'll close this as declined and re-delete the page. If arbcom wants to do something about deletion and DS, we can revisit this when they have actually done something. T. Canens (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
