Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 24

24 February 2019

User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles

User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles (talk|edit|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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• Overturn deletion. 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• A few points about this:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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)

• 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)

• @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)