Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

DS topics

Exactly what particular discretionary sanctions are authorized? Or do you mean that the admin in charge of that article/page can invoke any sanction that they feel like imposing?Oldperson (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: I'm not sure if this is in response to some other discussion, but you can find a list of topic areas where discretionary sanctions have been authorized at WP:DSTOPICS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare Thanks, I just noticed that TERF was not on the listOldperson (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed as a part of the GamerGate case. This supersedes sanctions which were authorized for pages dealing with transgender issues as part of Sexology and Manning naming dispute. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

As described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § sanctions.user, Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. So yes, they are given the discretion to devise an appropriate sanction, for the topics on the list referenced above. isaacl (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• The “authorization” of Discretionary Sanctions is dubious. It was very close to a small number of admins giving themselves authority to give themselves authority to give chilling warnings and extensive powers in relation to controversial but otherwise arbitrary content. Arguably necessarily, arguably a slippery slope to a police state. The inability of anyone to give a simple correct answer to the OP is a clue. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

For background on how this may have arisen, please see the conversation subsequent to my placing a Ds/Alert notice at User:Oldperson's Talk page. After a few responses, I became less sure of my answer and came here. See User talk:Oldperson#Standard Arbcom advice for editing in gender-related topics. Because of that, I opened my own section below, and got an edit conflict. See next section. Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What hasn't been answered? Discretionary sanctions can only be authorized in topic areas by the Arbitration Committee (either as a part of a case, or by motion). After they have been authorized, if there is disruption in a topic area covered by these sanctions, administrators can implement (and non-administrators can request administrators implement) page restrictions, bans, restrictions, etc. as needed to try to control the conflicts. If there is some question over whether a page falls under a topic area in which discretionary sanctions are authorized, a discussion at WP:AE or, if necessary, WP:ARCA would be the logical next step. As for TERF specifically, my opinion is that it's about as textbook of a "gender-related dispute or controversy" as it gets, and is therefore is subject to discretionary sanctions per the authorization in GamerGate. To elaborate a bit on the question below, there isn't really much in the way of guidance on who can and can't place that template. I see it as quite similar to the {{ds/alert}} templates: there is no actual restriction that goes into effect when the template is added, but it's rather there just to notify people of the fact that the article is a part of a contentious topic area, and that people should familiarize themselves with the conflict history at the page. I think if the template is placed at a page where other editors feel it does not apply, it would be reasonable to bring it to WP:AE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• • A clue to a lack of direct answer is the use of passive tense.

Who authorised? Who authorised the authoriser. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee did the authorizing, and the community authorized the committee by ratifying the arbitration policy. Now, if you want to ask who authorized the community, you'll have to take that to someone else. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The original question was Exactly what particular discretionary sanctions are authorized?—what, not who. isaacl (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: The Arbitration Committee authorized discretionary sanctions in that topic area, as with all discretionary sanctions. Perhaps I used imperfect grammar, but I don't see how it's unclear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The passive tense is always prone to misunderstanding, or misimplication. The question was written in the passive tense too. Ideally, WP:DSTOPICS would include a direct link to the authorisation. Ideally, the link would be to something more explanatory than this. I had confused DS with GS. I find the authorisation of GSs to be dubious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding a better explanation, I think it'd be a great idea to have something like a "Wikipedia:Five-minute guide to discretionary sanctions" explainer. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:Sanctions is not bad. WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions is not bad. WP:General_sanctions is unsatisfying. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The original question is in the form "What X is Y?", which I don't think is passive. It's asking for a list of X's that have the property Y. isaacl (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@L235: Agreed, and while they're (hopefully) creating an explainer, maybe they could create an accompanying template with suggested boilerplate to use for sanctions.page, possibly stolen from here, or else just have a section of copy-pastable text right in the explanation. Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Who can place Talk page notices of ACDS page restrictions and when

(edit conflict) I'm requesting a clarification of the guideline or policy (if any) regarding which articles fall under discretionary sanctions after a ruling is issued, and about who can place notices of page restrictions for articles that do fall under sanctions, and under what conditions.

This question is prompted by the warning notice currently at the top of Talk:TERF, which currently warns of active arbitration remedies and a WP:1RR page restriction. This warning was placed in good faith by Tsumiki (talk · contribs) (non-admin) in this edit on June 10, 2019, with the edit summary "copy from Talk:Gamergate controversy". There was no follow-up on the Talk page regarding placement of this warning afaik.

The wikicode was apparently taken from this edit (a hand-written tmbox) at Talk:Gamergate controversy by admin HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) January 29, 2015 with summary tidy templates, note DS, 1RR. HJ Mitchell followed that edit by adding a new Talk page section two minutes later entitled "1RR" (diff, permalink) announcing the "newly authorised discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBGG".

The TERF article has had significant gender-related controversy and seems as ripe as any article in the area of gender-related articles on Wikipedia for such sanctions to be announced and applied. However, it wasn't named in the WP:ARBGG page (which didn't exist at the outset, and wasn't added by amendment) so, who gets to do so? In the general case, whether gg-related or wrt to some other sanction, who decides that the article falls under a given sanction? Who should or may place an arbitration warning? Is there a template with some boilerplate text available for this, or must the warning be hand-crafted or copied from somewhere else each time? Is an accompanying Talk page section announcing such placement required or recommended? Can anyone place them, or only an Admin? And perhaps most importantly, how does one determine if a particular page falls under an existing sanctions topic area, or not? The Gamergate controversy page clearly falls under WP:ARBGG, because it's named there. I would think that TERF does, as well, but who decides? Is it all to fall under consensus at the article Talk page itself? That would seem to beg the original question. Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I got an edit conflict, and this question may somewhat duplicate the topic above by User:Oldperson. It was, in fact, in attempting to respond to Oldperson's questions at their Talk page wrt to the {{Ds/Alert}} notice I left there, that this topic came up. So perhaps these two sections should be merged. Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § aware.alert for answers on who can place notices on pages that fall under discretionary sanctions (anyone), who can alert editors (anyone), and how editor alerts should be placed (specific template). Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § sanctions.page has more details for page-specific sanctions that an administrator has imposed. As for deciding if a page falls under the scope of discretionary sanctions, as with everything else in Wikipedia, if it is contested, the interested participants should have a discussion. If it can't be resolved within the community, a request for clarification from the arbitration committee can be made. isaacl (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Isaacl, thanks; I was aware of the first part (placing editor alerts). Thanks for the link clarifying the second part, which appears to say that only an admin may place a page alert, such as this one at Gamergate. If I'm interpreting things correctly, that implies that this one, placed by a non-admin, was placed improperly. Since I don't think it's controversial, however, I don't see a need to reverse it, but an endorsement in a new section at Talk:TERF by an admin, similar to the "1RR section" added by H B Mitchell, might not be a bad idea. Mathglot (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, in this case the TERF page was placed under 1RR and extended-confirmed protection by El C when they created the edit notice here, and confirmed it with a post to the talk page here. Placing the template at the top of the page was just housekeeping, and not improper. – bradv🍁 02:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators imposing a sanction related to a specific page have the responsibility to place appropriate notifications regarding the sanctions, and so the instructions are worded that way. If they forgot one of the required steps, it doesn't mean the sanction no longer exists, though it can mean that editors may reasonably argue they were not aware of the sanction. isaacl (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mathglot: It's important to distinguish between a sanction and a notice. Page sanctions (1RR, protection, etc.) may only be placed by administrators, but as far as I'm aware there is no restriction on who may place a notice that a page falls under a topic area where discretionary sanctions have been authorized. Notices are nothing more than informational, and placing one does not authorize additional sanctions—it just informs people that DS covers the topic area already. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Modified my wording per NewsAndEventsGuy's comments below—they are correct that the word "alert" should be used more carefully. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bradv, Aha, I was searching page history for the sanctions notice that appears on the Talk page and assumed that was the decisive factor, and not anything related to the article page. After all, you don't have to be an admin to place an edit notice. The process and recommended steps (if any) do seem all rather hand-wavy, though, don't they? One really doesn't know where to search to see what has been done, and by whom, and where. I'm not saying that the process needs to be specified within an inch of its life, but one shouldn't have to run down several different paths to find out what's what, either. Kevin's suggestion in the discussion above is a good one. Things like How to do a move, a merge, an Afd, an Rfc and so on, all do a good job of codifying the process, with a how-to listing of recommended steps, what text to use, right down to suggested edit summaries in some cases. That's all very helpful, and takes out the guesswork. Surely we could have an WP:ACDS/How-to as well? Otherwise, it's a free-for-all, or these questions will just get repeated. Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:, Thanks. The fact that you said, "but as far as I'm aware there is no restriction on who may place an alert that a page falls under a topic area where discretionary sanctions have been authorized" (emphasis on the "as far as I'm aware") says to me that even as an admin, you're not 100% slam-dunk sure, and there (apparently) isn't an easy way to just look it up; WP:ACDS/How-to would fix that. Can somebody volunteer? Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems like the thing to do would be to clarify WP:AC/DS, rather than split out information that doesn't exist there to a separate page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Article talk page notice is not an "Alert" Re, above GorillaWarfare described the talk page notice as an "alert" saying, ("there is no restriction on who may place an alert that a page falls under a topic area where discretionary sanctions have been authorized." Technically, those talk page notices are not "alerts". The ACDS fine print defines one and only one thing as an "alert"... this is the template placed on the users talk page using {{Ds/Alert}}. As it says in the documentation for that template Special rules govern alerts. The special rules are located here. These article talk page notices are something else.... packaging, fluff, FYI. Their existence (or absence) is irrelevant to the operation of ACDS proceedings. You can seek enforcement of ACDS at WP:AE simply by showing the other ed had "awareness" that ACDS was in effect. What qualifies for showing awareness is also defined in the procedure. The talk page notice isn't even mentioned. (Example, there is a section at Hurricane Sandy#Relation to global warming, which falls under WP:ARBCC even though there is no talk page notice.) When the current ACDS procedure was hashed out a few years ago, we talked a lot about the talk page notice and the outcome was... they're nice, but completely irrelevant. And since they don't matter beyond FYI, and are only really noticed by a tiny subset of editors who read the informational stuff in the first place, anyone can toss one around. They are talk page notices.... please take care to use "alerts" for {{Ds/Alert}} and talk page notices as just a fluffy article talk page thingy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You are very correct—I shouldn't have used the word "alert" because of the implications as far as formal alerting and "awareness" is concerned. I've adjusted my comment accordingly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for clarification of expectations for ECP and/or logging of Discretionary Sanctions

I'm including both of these issues together because they are related

When ECP was granted to admins for general usage, it was done so under clear circumstances "to combat any form of disruption (such as vandalism, edit wars, etc.) on any topic, given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective". Since that time, some admins have been applying ECP for reasons outside those narrowly defined parameters: Some admins have applied ECP to user pages and user talk pages upon request from a user/to their own pages. Others have applied it despite other measures available or prior to trying lower levels of protection. Some have given vague reasons or even no reason whatsoever.

Examples of each from the past 45 days (not exhaustive)

• User request: [1] [2] [3]
• Vague "Up Protection": [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
• Reason outside authorized reasons/action as a first resort: [10] [11]
• No reason at all: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
• "place is fucked": [17]
• Others have had ECP applied via discretionary sanctions without logging such actions, as required ((Direct link to log for easier access): [18] [19] [20]

The question is, what do we do about admins that are abusing the limited role ECP is supposed to fill? Every application of ECP is one more instance where we chip away at "The Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". All unnecessary/vague ECPs degrade that goal even further. For those involving discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators we have additional expectations and list that consequences will follow. To date, I have not seen application of such consequences.

As such, I request the following:

1. Explicitly prohibit ECP outside the defined criteria
2. Specify that applications of ECP must include a valid rationale
3. We either do away with such logging requirements or actively enforce them; right now, it appears to be haphazard at best. Multiple instances of failing to log such actions can and should result in desysoping as it obfuscates oversight.

Please discuss. Buffs (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, WP:ARBPIA4 is scheduled to start on 19 September. This should be covered during that case, in which you will be welcome to participate. – bradv🍁 20:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: The Arbitration Committee does not control site policy, and the community has since further adopted ECP in the protection policy for all matters where it is used outside of arbitration remedies. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate the invite (and probably will participate), this extends well beyond WP:ARBPIA4 and, as such, probably should be separate. Buffs (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The logging requirement that is part of discretionary sanctions could be covered under the pending arbitration case. However the limits on the use of extended-confirmed protection, outside of discretionary sanctions, were authorized by the community and so is up to it to decide. A discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) may be more suitable. isaacl (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of community consensus, ECP only exists under ArbCom acquiescence. As such, it should have a say if we're extending what they've extended to us...

Until August 12, 2016, 30/500 protection applied only in topic areas determined by the Arbitration Committee, which authorized its use on articles reasonably construed as belonging to the Arab-Israeli conflict; as an arbitration enforcement tool by motion or remedy; or as a result of community consensus. In February 2019, the community authorized uninvolved administrators to place pages reasonably construed as belonging to the India–Pakistan conflict under extended confirmed protection as part of a general sanctions regime.

I don't mind general community consensus quite frankly nor do I see a general problem with applications with discretionary sanctions, but it seems to me that based on history, this is not something that an Admin can/should do to just any page. There are clear, defined criteria and it doesn't seem like we're sticking to them. Buffs (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Well to answer you question about what to do about an admin that you think is breaking policy: first talk to them and see if an explanation settles your concern, if you are at an impasse open a discussion at WP:AN for review. (Note: this is for the general non-arbcom-remedy related usages). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Since desysoping is the listed remedy (something that can't be done by community consensus), it's already been denied at WP:ANI. Moreover, it's broader than that and not individual admins, but how ArbCom will approach such concerns and at what level will they even take someone up for desysop? Buffs (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, extended-confirmed protection was invented by an admin under the scope of discretionary sanctions as a protective measure to be used as an arbitration case remedy. The community proposed and authorized the creation of a user right to make it easier to manage, and then, independent of the arbitration committee, came up with rules for it to be applied in general. It's the same as any protective tool, such as a topic ban: the arbitration committee can use it as a remedy, but that doesn't mean all uses of it fall within the purview of the arbitration committee to regulate.

The Incidents noticeboard can be used to try to impose lower level sanctions, but true enough, if the misconduct is thought to be severe enough to warrant removal of administrative privileges, this can only be handled through an arbitration case. But the rules defining misconduct for non-arbitration related matters remain under the control of the community. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not my understanding based on WP:ECP. I'm hoping that someone from ArbCom can provide better clarification. Buffs (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy § Background, from the first link in the text you quoted, for the background of the community-based policy for the use of extended-confirmed protection. (It links to a discussion saying that the original protective action was created by the arbitration committee for a specific case. Without digging into it further, I can't remember if it was the committee or an admin who came up with it first, but for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter.) isaacl (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Request for reversal of vanishing &/ ban by motion

I do not think this is appropriate for a case request and the attendant drama so I'll try it here instead. This request is two parts. Neither in my opinion require a case and may simply be done by motion. I really am trying to be sensitive here but I believe strongly that not examining the roots of this whole mess will be far more toxic to the community than allowing easy scrutiny.

1. Per my comments and reasoning here please reverse the vanishing of Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr. I believe I have made a prima facie case that the vanishing was done expressly to avoid scrutiny. There is evidence that other, active, editors may be open to community or Arbcom sanction but it would be very difficult for the community to do should this account remain vanished. The delete/move of the account's talk page made this even more difficult so, regardless of the outcome, please put it back in its proper place.

   The intent of this is to allow the edits and behavior of those active editors which may have facilitated this mess to be examined. I believe these interactions may give some clue to the genesis of FRAMGATE and the vanishing will allow the editor in question to avoid scrutiny both by the community and any interested parties who may be unfamiliar with the arcana of Wikipedia. In particular subpages.

2. Since there are now many issues relating to the user that is Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr I request that, regardless of the outcome of the unvanishing request, that the user be banned by motion. This will insure that she is unable to return to editing until the community/Arbcom are able to address the issues which have been raised. If she truly does not want to return then being banned will not be an issue.

I have purposely used much less detail than is customary because the vanished user is unlikely to speak in her own defense. I can recast the material I linked to specifically address the issues raised re this user upon request should you find the linked material and reasoning unpersuasive. Jbh ^Talk 21:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Paging a few arbitrators -- @SilkTork, Worm That Turned, Mkdw, and Joe Roe: for their awareness of the presence of this request. ∯WBG^converse 13:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No comment at all on this particular use. But if any user has left Wikipedia then I see little point in unvanishing them. If someone has left, they have left. As a courtesy we often blank case pages of users that have been site-banned. We are not about punishing people or humiliating those who have left, we are about preventing harm to Wikipedia. If any vanished user returns, then they can be unvanished, and at that point face scrutiny for any possible misdoings. SilkTork (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: This has nothing to do with "punishing people or humiliating" it has to do with making it possible to easily explore the connections between this user and others and whether others have violated our policies. For instance both Courcelles and Fluffernutter (For the uninitiated: that's, at the start of this, an arbitrator and a current member of T&S who for 'known reasons' can be assumed to reagurly speak to one another) were intimately familiar with with this editor before this fiasco. (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket from 2011 It has been pretty well established that this editor was, to be generous, problematic. But they were shielded by parties who may have, at a minimum, violated out PaGs. This account is central to the whole APC editing scheme and while I can not prove if other's behaved/edited in a problematic manner, I have not really looked either. So long as the account remains vanished, the links broken and the talk page inaccessible (Unlinked and hidden as a subpage even under the vanished account name!) it is extremely difficult for anyone to assess if/how bad the APC project's editing behavior was.

Something bad happened centering around the owner of this account. I firmly and resolutely believe that has been proven sufficiently to say that it is not in the interests of Wikipedia as a project or as a community for there to be this impediment to scrutiny. If we do not understand what really happened here; what potential motives there were for causing the upheaval of FRAMGATE; and who had a stake in it then the system is open to further similar abuse.

Simple. Wikipedia is about openness and accountability. Whether this person has left or not is immaterial. Beyond that her ermm... COI... means she is very unlikely to be completely disengaged from Wikipedia or the Foundation. In point of fact it is so unlikely I confidently say belief to the contrary is farcical.

Add: See [21] for some of my reasoning re investigating the issues as well as the practical constraints thereof. Jbh ^Talk 17:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Last edited: 17:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Jbhunley, I don't really see either of these two requests happening.
  Acting by motion is something that the committee should only do when it is certain of all the facts, or at least to the extent that it is reasonable to assume enough is known. In this case, that's not true at all - there are theories floating around, notably at an off-wiki forum, but this idea that we should be acting by motion doesn't match the level of knowledge that the community or indeed the committee has.
  Banning is something that Arbcom should only do in limited circumstances, and again, I don't see that what has happened here should require that. Effectively, you are suggesting that we should ban in lieu of questions being answered, which is not something that we do.
  Overturning a RtV isn't really an Arbcom thing. I can imagine that the committee might pass a motion to do so in exceptional circumstances, but it would take a lot to persuade me - personally - to support it. When a person leaves wikipedia permenantly (for example, by vanishing) the committee will generally accept that as there is little more that we can do to with respect to the individual. If a case centres around them and they are not here any more, there's no point to a case.
  Now, beyond those points - there are are questions to be answered (not necessarily through the committee). There are conflicts of interest at play which do not appear to have been declared, there is a plausibility of editing for pay, there are community norms that may have been breached. I've already stated that assuming our a case fits within our policies and procedures / our jurisdiction and scope then it should be raised. By that, I mean it should be about En wikipedia issues, it should be about continuing issues - Essentially, it should be about something that the committee can actually sort out. Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: OK. I had wanted to go the route which would stir up as little additional drama as possible. Having assumed that this would be handled much like cases held in abeyance figuring the ban would make it clear that gaming the vanishing cf a CLEANSTART is prohibited. At the least putting the talk page back is within your purview, since you did the move. Would you please put it back where it belongs?

  Who makes the decisions about vanishing then? We have a policy on it which says it can not be used to avoid scrutiny so it is under the discretion of enwp. Do you disagree that this vanishing has the effect of hindering scrutiny, especially from outside sources? The FRAMBAN is inside baseball and I doubt any media is interested but the whole APC thing along with the apparent abuse of process etc. that is likely to have some legs. So, not only is it of interest to us for policing behavior and BLP but it is also essential for the ability to fairly report on both the Foundation and Movement. Right now, considering my AGF is low to non-existent, I would see the vanishing; the history of out of process deleting of the talk page with Raystorm's comments; then the subsequent hiding the talk page as an unlinked subpage when the deletion did not stick -- well I think it is fishy and if I were an outside party it certainly would not make me disbelieve a cover-up. So, yep... its worth the fight. Where do I properly bring it up? Jbh ^Talk 18:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  Jbhunley, You don't think Arbcom unilaterally overtuning a RtV and issuing a ban would stir up drama!?

  You are right that putting the page back would be in my purview - though I don't see a need to at present. It's not deleted, it is linked in the history, but is archived in a manner that many editors (and admins) do. The moment I saw it deleted I did something about it, I agree it should never have been but I do put that down to simple error.

  I don't know who makes decisions about vanishing any more as it's a global action, performed by stewards or global renamers. I think asking a friendly steward (or stewards list) where you should ask about overturning would be a good first step. Worm^TT(talk) 20:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: Ehh... I'm sure Arbcom would catch some crap for it but yeah... it'd be less drama than opening a case or spending 3+ days at AN/ANI only to have half the editors there yelling "but Arbcom is handling this case" and as an increment to what ya'll are already getting it'd be minimal. It is all about relative levels of drama on this.

  Thanks for the advice, I'll check with the stewards but do, please reconsider moving the talk page back where it belongs. Whether "some admins do it that way" has zero relevance to the simple fact that the effect is to further avoid scrutiny. Regardless please say whether or not that move is an "Arbcom action" an "admin action" or just your own preference. Thanks. Jbh ^Talk 20:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  It was an admin action. There was no Arbcom involvement - I'm fairly sure most of the members didn't even know about it until this conversation. Worm^TT(talk) 21:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 21:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)