---

The Arbitration Committee wishes to make the discretionary sanctions procedure and system work more effectively. Taking your feedback from the Phase I consultation, we have created a draft version of new sanctions. Below we have broken down each proposed change into a subsection with a rationale. Please use this page in conjunction with the draft page. Comments and feedback welcome!

A few notes:

• This proposal list is not the final version. Please consider this to be a workshop and provide alternative proposals in comments. Your feedback will be taken into account for the final version.
• The community will get at least one more opportunity to review the final version, and will be able to express support or opposition for it.
• Draft language is linked, but it is not the final version, and should be considered part by part, not as a whole.
• This is not a !vote: support or opposition without a reasoned opinion will be disregarded.

Proposal summary

Discretionary sanctions (DS) will be renamed "Contentious Topics" (abbreviated as CT), which refers to DS topics, and "special enforcement actions", referring to the levying of restrictions.

Proposed language

No specific proposed language, but this terminology can be found throughout the proposed procedure page

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics (abbreviated as CT). These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee.^[1] When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Rationale

"Discretionary sanctions" was a bad name:

• It's implicitly intimidating
• It doesn't explain anything to anyone who doesn't already know what it means
• All admin actions come as an exercise of administrative discretion; "discretionary" doesn't convey any information. (Is it absolute discretion? That sounds scary too!)

Plus, the term "discretionary sanctions" referred to several different things, which were confusing to keep straight especially for newer editors:

• The overall system of discretionary sanctions (as in "discretionary sanctions are broken")
• The actual individual restrictions and page restrictions that were levied (as in "I issued a discretionary sanction", "I was sanctioned", "this is a sanctioned page")
• Authorization to use impose discretionary sanctions in a topic (as in "I hope we get discretionary sanctions out of this case", "this topic has "DS")

We propose shifting to "contentious topics" because it should be understandable by editors of any experience level who come into a CT area. Not all RL contentious topics are Wikipedia Contentious Topics and some Wikipedia Contentious Topics are not real life ones but this was true of any phrase that we considered.

We call the actual restrictions that are issued pursuant to the contentious topics procedure "special enforcement actions". This makes clear that an admin working in these topics may make actions that are different than normal, both in the tools available to them and in the way they may be reviewed and changed. Again the goal was clarity.

Name (feedback)[edit]

• I will note that the Committee was torn on what new name to choose, and also had support for "Constrained topics" and "Arbitrated topics". A new name is coming, but we are still open to suggestions on what to go with. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓} 04:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Like. Good, let's shake things up, make em more accessible. Also, CTs do have better guns, but they are more expensive, so it's a trade off (though, I'm biased, I love the Krieg most). El_C 17:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Like the two other suggestions use more difficult English. Femke (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My concern with the contentious topics name is that it is sufficiently generic that it becomes a term of art problem, akin to notability. (Did I link notability or notability?) It will be more difficult to explain to any (new) users in spaces like AN or ANI, never mind external to Wikipedia, that there is a difference between a contentious topic (say, the Syrian civil war) and a contentious topic (say, everything within the scope of post-1992 American politics). You'll notice that, in fact, the Syrian civil war has an associated community-authorized GS regime today; if the community should follow suit with renaming "general sanctions" to something more meaningful, that the former of those two examples also becomes even more difficult to discuss.

  I personally suggested arbitrated topics because that makes our previous involvement clear and our oversight over the current topic sufficiently implied if not obvious. While it suffers from the reverse issue (jargon), I'd rather users get a word pair that has few or no other meanings and be educated as to what those two words mean in juxtaposition than have to tell people "no, there's two meanings, and one of them is special here". Izno (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a consistent capitalisation may help a bit here (so Contentious Topic rather than contentious topic), but yeah, that's a downside. Femke (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally I am open to a number of suggestions for the name - as I really want it to change. For me arbitrated topics requires nearly the same amount of wiki knowledge as DS. I'm not sure its virtue (makes clear who is responsible) outweighs the costs of change. So it would not be a name I would be planning to support. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The more I think about it, the more I like Arbitrated Topics. The main problem with Discretionary Sanctions for me is that a) discretionary is a college-level word, whereas contentious/arbitrated are difficult words that a majority of non-college educated people may know b) the word sanctions makes people scared, which may induce a defensive attitude. I think Arbitrated Topics may imply more involvement of admins than reality, but it does imply some different rule set, which Contentious Topics may not. That said, I'm still very happy with the CT naming. Femke (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this. Not one is ever going to naturally understand the system of blocks, bans, arbitration and discretionary sanctions; it is always going to be something that new users are going to have to learn about. Changing the name to "contentious topics" is just going to make people think they naturally understand it when I'm reality they are wrong. That makes AE worse, not better. GoldenRing (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I like the "constrained topics" or "arbitrated topics" wording better. Calling it "contentious topics" may lead to confusion; I could see people thinking this can be applied to any topic that becomes contentious, rather than those where (DS, or whatever it turns out to be called now) has specifically been authorized. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Dislike : "special enforcement actions" feels vague and inconcise. (also that name kinda reminds me of something…) Madeline (part of me) 18:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The naming similarity was not lost on us when we discussed naming earlier this year. I don't think it's relevant.

  We are taking naming suggestions. Please provide one! :) Izno (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For the affected topic areas, "arbitrated topics" would fit well. For the enforcement part, I'd prefer a term which is somehow connected to the term chosen for the topics. Maybe just "Contentious topics enforcement"/"Arbitrated topics enforcement"? Madeline (part of me) 19:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would personally keep DS for historical continuity reasons --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support Arbitrated Topics, as a preferred term, especially pro Izno's reasoning. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Arbitrated topics" makes most sense. Not sure I like "special enforcement action", given the similarity with Putin's name for his war. How about "arbitration enforcement action"? firefly ( t · c ) 20:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• DS has worked and make sense, the sanctions are authorized by Arb, and at the discretion of admin. CT makes less sense and is vague. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If I understand correctly, this is more than a rename, but a change in vocabulary: the arbitration committee would identify contentious topics, and enact arbitration rulings that authorize special enforcement actions for contentious topics. Is this correct? If this is the case, I do not like "arbitrated topics". It doesn't matter to editors how the topic came to be identified as requiring special enforcement rules, whether it was from a community consensus or from the arbitration committee. I like that the two paths for identifying contentious topics can be unified under one term and procedural framework. isaacl (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To answer your question, basically yes. If a topic is designated by Arbcom as a contentious topic, there would be a standard set of special enforcement actions authorized (i.e. page protections, CR, etc) and potentially other actions as authorized by a ruling. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Reading the rest of the sections on this page made this clear. I think it would be helpful to explicitly state this up front in this section, as that makes the rationale for the rename more evident. isaacl (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the new term can be one with the same connotations but that isn't in common everyday use, such as Red-Flag Topic, or Flashpoint Topic. isaacl (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Late to responding to this, but not "flashpoint" or the like, that name implies that the problems are significant but brief. If anything, most DS topics are slow-burn problems. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Flashpoint" is a reference to the volatility of the topic. Fuels with a low flashpoint are dangerous, because they are easily ignitable. The connotation I am trying to convey is that editors should be wary when editing pages related to these topics, because disputes are easily triggered. isaacl (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• +1 A name change is definitely in order. What the new name should be is less clear to me, but contentious topics makes it very clear that the topics it covers are contentious and therefore are different to other areas. "Constrained topics" is also a good name to me, but "Arbitrated topics" seems a little unclear to me if I was to put myself in the shoes of a newbie. There is a reason why news organisations compare ArbCom to "Wikipedia's Supreme Court" as more (US) editors are aware of what a supreme court is than what an arbitration committee is. The same follows for "Wikipedia" vs "Wikimedia". Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It's probably not what our esteemed arbitrators want to hear BUT...you know something is wrong with the process when you can't come up with a name that isn't frightening. Eliminate DS and let our admins do their job. Why can't an admin add - subject to 1RR at the top of the article TP, and the same for the article edit view? Simple. Atsme 💬 📧 23:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Right now general sanctions (that is, restrictions that apply to all editors) are authorized by the community or through the authority delegated to the arbitration committee by the community. If the community wants to allow individual admins to enact a general sanction on any article, such as a 1-revert rule, it can hold an RfC to approve this. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your proposal of "eliminating DS", if implemented in the described way, extends DS to all articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Admins have always had the authority to take action: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached.

  The primary difference between DS/AE and regular admin actions is the difficulty in overturning a DS/AE action per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions sanctions.modify:

  No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or

  prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

  Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may, at the discretion of the committee, be desysopped.

  this update in 2019 appears to be the only update in that section. Atsme 💬 📧 01:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Discretionary Sanctions" isn't a good name, because "discretionary" sounds like an admin's power to use IAR rather than one of the most formalised and rule-bound procedures on the site. There is a cost to changing names and takeup is difficult: 10 years from now, half of us will still be abbreviating it DS, and WP:DS already redirects somewhere else (could it be much more inside baseball?). Additionally, let's not mistake this for a major change that solves any problem at its root. All this being said, I have no objection to the new name "contentious topics". "Arbitrated Topics" would perhaps be simpler and clearer: it's the Arbitration Committee and they authorise actions on Arbitrated Topics.
  "Special enforcement actions", on the other hand, sounds like a military term. I see from an above comment that I'm not the first to compare it to the rhetoric around war crimes. "Enforcement actions" is more concise and less austere. "Arbitration Sanctions'" would fit with "Arbitrated Topics" and "Arbitration Committee". — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What about "Topics of Concern"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like "Mistakes were made" to me. Why "of concern"? Because these topics are contentious or controversial. So we can just use these words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really like "special enforcement actions", which sounds like a euphemism for something horrible, like the ongoing "special military operation". "Arbitrated topics" sounds better than "contentious topics" to me, as not all contentious topics will be "contentious topics". Hut 8.5 17:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I like CT, because... Counter-Strike. But I agree with this take RE: euphemism for something horrible. El_C 18:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Contentious Topics" is a concept that can be roughly understood even without knowing the English words by looking them up in a dictionary. It's about topics that are contentious, and the need to be careful when editing about them is pretty intuitive. Informing a new editor that a topic is officially considered to be a "Contentious Topic" on Wikipedia is a friendly gesture, rather of the "warning a friend at your side" than "warning administratively from above" type. None of this applies to the term "Discretionary Sanctions". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for "contentious topics" and "special enforcement actions" in place of discretionary sanctions. Semantically, discretionary sanctions has never made much sense to me, for the reasons outlined in the diatribe that I posted on WT:AE some time ago. This should lead to a drastic reduction in confusion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for "contentious topics", neutral on "special enforcement action". Agree with the simple "enforcement action" suggestion above. The more we can use standard, easy-to-understand English, the better. –dlthewave ☎ 04:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, what about "contentious topic enforcement action" instead of "special enforcement action"? Even though it's a bit more verbose, it reinforces that the action was taken because it's a contentious topic, as opposed to being a "special" situation. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Forgive me Scotty, but that sounds like the sequel to a movie. Is it on Netflix? Atsme 💬 📧 17:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Discretionary sanctions" sounds like a legalese to me. "Contentious topics" is absolutely more clear. Obviously the old name should be kept for historical reasons, but do encourage the adoption of the new name in order to make ArbCom more friendly to editors. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Changing the name isn't going to work miracles, but the old name was indeed bad (intimidating, pompous & impenetrable to outsiders) and I think the new one, which uses plain English and forefronts the reason for the special rules instead of the consequences for not following them, could have a small positive effect. – Joe (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If you want to emphasise the fact that administrators, in this case, are basically being delegated by ArbCom to enforce their decisions, I'd propose Delegated Enforcement Actions (instead of Special Enforcement Actions), which would cover both uses of WP:AE, the imposition of Discretionary Sanctions, as they currently known, and the enforcement of restrictions imposed by ArbCom as a result of cases they heard. Similarly, instead of Contentious Topic, which might be confusing, considering there may be contentious topics that are not necessarily Contentious Topics on Wikipedia, because ArbCom has not yet heard a case about them or has not authorised Discretionary Sanctions, you could be using Delegated Enforcement Topic Areas. Salvio 10:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• My basic deal on this is that "discretionary sanctions" is indeed a bad name, but "contentious topics" seems like it would be a bad replacement, because that phrase already means something to most people. It's simple, but it's incorrect. It would be bizarre and confusing to explain to someone why Wikipedia's official policies said that "tree shaping" and "drug prices" were contentious topics, but "Tibetan independence" and "bombing of Nagasaki" were not. In real life legal systems, we have laws about "vexatious litigation" rather than "filing stupid lawsuits", and "harassment" rather than "being an asswipe". There are many situations, for example, where someone can file a ton of stupid lawsuits without being a vexatious litigant, or act like a total asswipe without meeting any statutory definition of harassment; the court's job is not to determine whether someone was being a douche, but whether they broke the law. Similarly, the Arbitration Committee does not determine whether a topic is contentious in vacuo, but whether editing disputes on Wikipedia have caused enough acrimony to necessitate stricter rules for editing about it -- so calling it a "contentious topic" would be misleading and incorrect. Note that there is already a Wikipedia:List of controversial issues, which we would have to explain to people in a farcically opaque manner ("No, that's not a controversial issue, it's a contentious topic, those are totally different"). I would support some of the above suggestions, like "delegated enforcement actions" or "constrained topics". "Arbitrated topics" is quite good, and says what it means rather succinctly, so that might be my favorite. jp×g 21:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I definitely prefer "delegated enforcement action" to "special enforcement action". Thanks for that suggestion. Something about "arbitrated topic" is still rubbing me the wrong way, but I'll keep sleeping on it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Contentious Topics is better than Arbitrated Topics, but both are a significant improvement over the current name, which is vague and a poor description of what is actually at hand. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that there should be a more intuitive name than DS. Since you are looking for alternative ideas, one that I can think of is "restricted topics". It's not as jargony as "arbitrated", a little more natural sounding than "constrained", and avoids the imprecision of "contentious". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The initiative to change name is a welcome one, but I agree with the concerns that 'Contentious Topics' is no better a term of art. I suggest that 'Qualified Topics' is better, in the sense of allowing less for confusion. Arguably it may lead people to think that you need to have qualifications to edit the topics, but that understanding is so inaccurate that it would tend to be harmless. Failing that, 'Arbitrated Topics' is better than the existing proposal. But in the final analysis, Atsme has it right. The whole of D.S. developed as an over-correction to administrative heavy-handedness in the early part of last decade. (I share blame for the over-correction, as a principal drafter of the last major redraft.) I regret that we did not, back then, address the true problem by developing a fast-track system for 'disciplining' heavy-handed administrators. What we have ended up with are rules for their own sake, and rules that have malignantly taken on a life of their own. Empowering the use of administrative common sense is the essence of what D.S. was trying to facilitate in its earlier days. Recapturing that empowerment should be your objective. I suggest that this enormous and disproportionate codification is never going to work because it provides for misconduct to be dealt with by turning firstly to rules, not to common sense, the very thing you should facilitate. Plus ça change. AGK (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @AGK reading this comment, and ones below, it seems clear you'd like to blow up the current system. What's not clear to me is what you would like to replace it with. You allude to an idea here that I don't really understand. I'm hoping you'll consider developing your thoughts a bit further and putting it in the community proposal section. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be difficult to say it better than Atsme, whose suggestion (above) I have adopted. It's clear to me that your draft is a rewrite of the existing regulations. I suggest it is fatal to redraft rather than starting from scratch when one is replacing a regulation, rather than amending it. I suggest starting a new draft that contains only Atsme's suggestion, then trying very hard not to add anything else. You'll end up with an instrument of the committee that empowers admins to unilaterally sanction users, subject to whatever other provisions you choose to insert. Do that properly and the harmful content should naturally be excised – nothing will be "[blown] up", which is a derogatory description of my suggestion and indicates how entrenched your mindset has become. I am happy to discuss my views but I don't plan to submit competing proposals. AGK (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @AGK Trying to understand here. Atsme's suggestion is to simply do away with DS, but you seem to be suggesting that DS should be rewritten from scratch, which seem to be different ideas? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Atsme was being glib, and the committee is not going to dissolve its own procedure. Start a new draft that provides only for the essence of DS: that admins can unilaterally sanction a user. Keep it simple. Think carefully before any limiting provisions are inserted. That is what I am suggesting. AGK (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  DGG who sat on ArbCom (for how many terms) stated the following: As a separate issue, anything that relies on DS will fail. The only way forward is for arb com to directly regulate conduct by removing prejudiced editors and admins, either from an area or from WP, not trying to adopt rules about just how disruptive they can be. ~DGG Too many editors are saying it, and even more who are too afraid to speak up, or else they are so frustrated thinking no one is listening they gave up. Deploy the KISS principal - Keep It Simple Sweetheart. Atsme 💬 📧 18:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you both for your comments. In the phase I consultation, similar views were expressed but ultimately the community's consensus was that the current DS system is effective. This consensus counsels in favor of improving the system rather than starting over with a new one. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're very welcome. May I have the diff to that community consensus? Thanks in advance. Atsme 💬 📧 19:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to express my doubt about this inference that the current system should be taken as a baseline for tweaks, merely because it is (somewhat) effective (at a considerable expense in editor and Admin resources) -- my reasons in parentheses. A zero-based rewrite draft would not be precluded from retaining some of the current system and some of its detail that the initial poll favored. But nearly any system would be somewhat effective. As far as I could tell from the first round, I did not see the kind of enthusiastic support for the current system of the sort that would lead us to conclude "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" The dangers of assuming that any current system or editor resource burden as the basis for a revised system are well-known in general contemporary thinking about policy and regulatory best practices. I think AGK and Atsme made valid, critical, points for Arbcom to consider for the next round in this process.@L235, DGG, Atsme, AGK, and Barkeep49: SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @SPECIFICO as L235 noted the changes here came out of the Phase 1 consult where there was not consensus that we needed to do a rewrite from scratch. That said the idea is interesting enough to consider that I will repeat what I said to AGK: make a proposal in the community proposal section below that outlines how a rewritten from scratch DS might work. It certainly won't be as complete as what's presented here but it would at least let me start to think about the relative advantages and tradeoffs between ideas. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't pinged, but it is my intention to devote this entire day to the development of such an outline, Barkeep49. Atsme 💬 📧 14:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Consultation is the taking of individual views. It tells you a lot about how it has been going for people, quite a bit of what they think of the present system, and a small amount of their views about the future. It certainly is not a consensus-building exercise. Following consultation, the onus is on the decision-maker to apply their minds to the problem and find a solution. What you have done is try to sort a problem by taking the views of the people who are having the problem and perpetuating them. It's like a mathematical carried error. I suggest that you need to look again at whether that consensus was a well-informed one, and at how it would change if a better draft were put before the consultees. (At this stage, I propose to say no more, as I have made my views clear, and I hope they have at least been useful to you as you form your own thoughts.) AGK (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with Kevin that the goal, as informed by last year's DS consult, is to reform what exists. Starting from scratch has its own considerable costs. And try as I might, I couldn't envision a system that wasn't just a version of DS but wearing a different outfit. Short of disestablishing ArbCom cases or going back to the days of having a hundred cases a year, we need some kind of system to deal with our trouble points. I disagree with the idea that we're taking an "if it ain't broke don't fix it approach." Several Arbs ran on the idea that DS *is* broken, and we hope to fix it. I am genuinely interested in what people think an alternative system would look like, but I admit to having a hard time visualizing it from what has been presented so far. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the community wants to empower admins to be able to unilaterally sanction editors, it should amend the administrators policy itself. If it wants to limit this ability to red-flag topics, that can be part of the policy. It could, for example, specify that red-flag topics can be identified either by community consensus, or by the arbitration committee. The community bears the responsibility for this type of policy change. isaacl (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also on "Team Blow It Up". I would caution against interpreting Phase I results as indicative of broader community consensus, as opposed to indicative of the small, self-selecting group of Phase I participants. (Same caveat applies here.) But it makes a whole lot more sense to me to just put all of the encyclopedia "under DS" by applying the "good parts" everywhere (e.g. allow admins to add 1RR to any page), while eliminating the "bad parts" (e.g. awareness criteria). Whatever we trust admins to do in our "Contentious Topics", we also would trust admins to do in other topics. The reverse, which is the status quo, makes no sense. Levivich (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, I've not yet decided on whether I think it's a good idea to replace discretionary sanctions with broader authority for administrators. But I do think the community should be taking the initiative to decide if it wants to, in essence, obsolete discretionary sanctions by modifying the administrators policy to give them more options for enacting sanctions without needing a community discussion ahead of time. isaacl (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Applying the good parts everywhere makes a ton of sense. Something that's always baffled me is that we act like DS is a set of special behavioral standards and consequences; the Guidance for editors lists a set of expectations that's literally just our most basic standards (follow P&Gs, follow page restrictions, don't game the system) and then inexplicably invites folks to edit in other topic areas if they aren't willing to comply (newsflash: if you're doing something that would get you sanctioned at AE, it won't fly anywhere else either). And the principle of escalating warnings, bans and blocks is certainly not unique to DS topics. –dlthewave ☎ 04:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Dlthewave. The observation that the formal substantive standards of behavior are exactly the same in DS and non-DS areas is correct. DS does do some signaling work ("this is a DS area so we put up with less") but your point is an important one. I'll save more of my thoughts for the next phase. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• pardon me for being late to the party, and for not being wholly familiar with discretionary sanctions (i don't do a lot of contentious editing), but what if these topic areas were called something like "areas under edit armistice" instead? the shortcut "WP:EARS" does not seem to be currently in use, so "EARS" could be an effective abbreviation of "edit armistice". these areas could be referred to as the "EARS areas" or be said to be "under EARS". admittedly, this probably sounds stupid at first, so let me try to explain.
  • in real-life wars, the agreement of an armistice does not mean that a war has ended, but merely that fighting has stopped, and that there is a desire to agree to a more permanent peace. similarly, in these troublesome areas of wikipedia, warring editors have agreed to end their fighting, and the arbitration committee has ruled that there should be a lasting peace.
  • the name is immediately understandable. just like armistices signal the end of fighting in wars, so should edit armistices signal the end of fighting in edit wars.
  • the name makes it clear that it refers to disputes on wikipedia. edit wars do not happen in real-life (unless you're an editor outside wikipedia too, or something). similarly, edit armistices do not refer to the end of fighting in real-life disputes.
  • the name is a word pair that has virtually no other meanings.
  • the abbreviation "EARS" may help remind editors that in these topic areas:
    1. they should keep their ears open and listen to the concerns of other editors before making any bold edits, and
    2. administrators are keeping their ears open to listen for any potential disturbances.
  • the word "armistice" is associated with the desire for peace. it is not an intimidating or threatening word. the first armistice day in 1918 was a cause for celebration, and subsequent commemorations have served as a constant reminder that war does not end well. the use of the word may also help motivate editors to be more cautious in these areas, as people generally do not wish to violate real-life armistices either.

here are some examples of how the associated wording might change:

I issued a discretionary sanction	→	I enforced the edit armistice
I was sanctioned	→	I was blocked for violating the edit armistice
this is a sanctioned page	→	this is a page under edit armistice
I hope we get discretionary sanctions out of this case	→	I hope we enter into an edit armistice after this case
this topic has "DS"	→	this topic is under edit armistice
special enforcement actions	→	edit armistice enforcement actions

notice how the wording shifts from a focus on administrators wielding power to a focus on administrators simply wishing to keep the peace. notices on talk pages are no longer threatening, but merely serve as reminders to be careful. unfortunately, "edit armistice enforcement actions" still sounds militaristic, but at least it now emphasizes the use of measures necessary to prevent further disruption, rather than allude to "special military operations" and other terrible things.

as an aside, in addition to the word "discretionary" being uninformative, as explained in the rationale section above, "sanction" is an autoantonym, so its use may be confusing to people not fluent in english. "armistice" may be a difficult word, but i assume many editors would have had some exposure to the word, especially since it is in the name of a holiday. also, i assume "edit" will be widely understood. dying (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think many of the objections to the proposed name "contentious topics" can be addressed with ordinary language. For example, if there's a concern that new users will not realise that it is a term of art with practical implications, not just a description, say something like This article covers a contentious topic and different rules apply to editing it. Or if you want to emphasise that ArbCom is involved, say This article has been designated a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee. Often when it comes to naming on things on Wikipedia we get stuck on the idea that a single noun phrase has to perfectly capture every nuance of the thing, but you know, that's why our ancestors invented grammar. – Joe (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

Change the nutshell box to be more clear and provide more relevant info

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#top

Rationale

More clear than previous version.

Nutshell (feedback)[edit]

Yep, it's more clear. The current nutshell includes the passage: This updated discretionary sanctions procedure was authorised by motion on 3 May 2014 and superseded and replaced all prior discretionary sanction provisions with effect from that date. Believe it or not, 2014 was 8 years ago, so the current DS have been here more than a third of Wikipedia's lifetime. Hopefully us old people have learned by now what this newfangled DS thing is all about and the nutshell should instead be written for newcomers. — Bilorv (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It's more clear than the previous one, but could probably still use a little more refinement. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What's the difference between the old and new summary? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Significantly better! The current one is difficult to understand even for experienced editors. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Meaning no disrespect to the authors of this draft, who are obviously technically skilled draughtsmen: if you need a précis, then it might mean that the document body could be clearer. This is tending to apply here, in that the document is very dense and difficult to work with, albeit less so than before. AGK (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

Add a lead section that includes:

• Basic definition of contentious topics
• Expectations for editors

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#top

Rationale

Previously, the discretionary sanctions procedure did not contain a usable definition of the system and begun with legalistic definitions and a complicated "Authorisation" section. This reformat puts the most important information for the average editor up top: "what is the contentious topics system, and should I do anything different because of it?" The guidance for editors here will hopefully be helpful and probably answer a fair share of newbie questions about CT.

Lead section (feedback)[edit]

• I like this idea. An editor who receives an alert is probably most concerned with "What does this mean for me?", so placing that front and center very much makes sense. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Usually our processes are relatively 'third person', but I wonder if it would be valuable to make the boxed content be a very direct second person: Within contentious topics, editors you should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia and Editors You are advised to err on the side of caution if they you are unsure whether. --Izno (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like a good idea. We use it sporadically in the normal block templates, and perhaps should use in more notices (of whatever variety) where read by a specific person and where that editor is less likely to be incalated into wikispeak. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, second person is less dry and clearer. It is easier for me and you to read. — Bilorv (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The suggested wording of using second person IMO is clearer. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a fan of the word "powers". We've been granted the authority to create limitations on articles and sanctions against editors, but we don't have "powers". I always found that phrase (admin powers) more than a little off putting, and I don't think I'm alone in reading it that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's much more clear, especially for new/unfamiliar editors! Second-person would make it even better. My only quibble is that the points in the box are presented as special rules for CT topics rather than basic behavioral requirements Wiki-wide. I'm glad the sentence "Any editor whose edits do not meet these requirements may wish to restrict their editing to other topics in order to avoid the possibility of sanctions" is gone (no, you can't disregard P&Gs if you stick to non-contentious topics) but the implication is still there. –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Same concerns with Dennis Brown about 'power', but otherwise a good change. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Much better! Clearer in every way. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with the others: the lead is clear, comprehensible and gives the reader a good understanding of C.T. AGK (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

The current WP:AWARENESS criteria are replaced with an appealable presumption of awareness following an initial alert.

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Awareness_of_contentious_topics

Rationale

We hope that the change will reduce wikilawywering while hopefully remaining fair to people who are genuinely not aware. The intent behind the AWARENESS rule was to prevent people who didn't reasonably have a chance to understand that they broke a rule; unfortunately, AWARENESS has now turned into an entire body of wikilaw. That lead to some absurd situations and perhaps the clearest consensus of the initial consultation, namely that AWARENESS is broken. We decided that the best way to deal with it was to get rid of the wikilaw and go with a simpler standard. While there is a general presumption of awareness, we are hoping that enforcing administrators will use common sense in deciding whether or not there is awareness in practice. This combined with slightly easier appeal standards should hopefully mean that to the extent that things need to get sorted out they will through AE rather than laborious ArbCom writing. If you were a big fan of the current standards, they live on in a footnote.

Awareness (feedback)[edit]

• Yes please and thank you. This would make life so much easier. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The requirement that one must be uninvolved to leave an alert was just brought to my attention. I really don't like that piece; it's needless bureaucracy. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the escalated alert, though, not the introductory one. El_C 18:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's two different levels of alerts? "Awareness of contentious topics" does not make this clear to me as written. — Bilorv (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the section directly below: #Alerts. El_C 00:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is certainly needed, but going down the path of appealable presumptions of awareness, is there a formal or semi-formal level - the clear consensus for a full AE appeal, a rough consensus, or anything above a "yeah, could see how you might have forgotten in these circumstances" standard? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Like — finally! El_C 17:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Mostly great. Agree that the requirement one must be uninvolved to alert would be difficult to work with. I'd estimate that currently most alerts are given by people who are involved, and that people will find it too high a barrier to go to a noticeboard. With the new wording (contentious topics), the chilling effect of giving out notices is mitigated, so I don't think this is necessary. Femke (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Femke I agree. Involved editors are the most likely people to notice a need. Most uninvolved editors won’t see articles they aren’t involved with surely? Doug Weller talk 18:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The clerks have never been involved at AE before. This would be a large addition to our remit. Like others above, I think the uninvolved barrier to be too high for this --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would otherwise be fine with the addition of AE to the clerks' remit... but I find it a bit awkward for the non-admins among the clerk team. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Have the drafters considered the volume of notice requests (from involved users) that we expect to need, and is the clerk's noticeboard able to handle that volume while still conducting its normal business? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Firefangledfeathers: Well, nothing actually happens at the clerks noticeboard. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alerts from involved editors leads to heightened contention. However to only allow them from uninvolved editors does seem a high bar, is there no middle ground? So editors currently engaged in any editorial dispute with the editor being alerted would not be allowed to give alerts, but those who are generally involved but not currently involved can. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. The huge body of Byzantine "awareness law" needs to go. Not sure I like the "uninvolved only" part but I absolutely understand what the idea behind it is. Will have a think about some alternatives we could look at. firefly ( t · c ) 20:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand the idea, but I don't like dragging Arb clerks into AE against their will. The difference being "involved" and "not involved" is itself going to be in the eye of the beholder, at least with average editors who aren't admin and used to using that definition in the wiki sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This proposes to change wikilawyering to a different form of wikilawyering (specifically, over whether the individual who gave the notification is "involved"). In practice, most notices are given by someone who is at least arguably involved, so this could if anything even be worse than the time-based stuff (under the current system, if you got a notice last month, not much wikilawyering is practically possible over that). I appreciate the thought toward changing the current model, but this will not make it better, and could even make it worse. Make it simple—anyone can make you aware (including yourself, if you for example give alerts to others or file an AE request regarding the area), and once aware, always aware. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Does Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware apply for the introductory alert? I'm uneasy about the phrase Only the officially designated template should be used without further qualification. Editors should be free to let someone know in conversation that topic X is a designated contentious topic. Personally, I would prefer that once an editor is made aware of the concept of contentious topics, they are responsible for determining if they are editing a contentious topic, and so no further alerts for specific topics are required. isaacl (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, anyone is free to mention anything (generally), but in terms of establishing AWARE'ness, the formal template has all the necessary links, etc., which an informal explanation may fall short of. Personally, I'm interested to see how a two-tier alert system will fair. It's an interesting concept, which I think is worth exploring. Of course, there'll be much to iron out, a process for which much of the success of this new system would depend on. Which I suppose is what we're doing (or starting to do) now. El_C 22:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes; I feel, though, that the draft text isn't sufficiently clear in establishing that "alert" is being used to mean a formal alert that serves as an official signpost for awareness. Thus I think more qualification is required. With the stated desire to have a more flexible awareness system, I'm also not clear if formal alerts are the only way to establish awareness. (The draft text doesn't talk about two tiers of notification, so I'm not sure how this fits into the determination of awareness.) isaacl (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone who has participated in arbitration proceedings is currently considered to be aware of associated authorizations for discretionary sanctions. Will this continue to be a factor in determining awareness? isaacl (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I can see the point in using uninvolved editors to avoid the hostility that comes with an involved editor essentially breathing down your neck with the message "I've been watching your edits and just wanted to tell you that you can be shot on sight and your family detained for the least violation of The Rules". However, alerts should be bot-delivered to avoid any animosity towards individual volunteers and huge waste of uninvolved volunteer labor, and completely rewritten to avoid sounding and looking like a clear and direct threat. — Bilorv (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I really like the changes, for the most part. Two things: I dislike that ArbCom still specifies what template must be used to inform someone of DS/CT. If I explain AP2 to John Doe, accurately and fully but in my own words, is John Doe aware or not? Or am I not allowed to even offer the explanation unless I use the template first? (Do I need to be AWARE that I am not allowed to explain CT in my own words?) I would rather ArbCom strongly suggest that the designated template be used, and leave it at that. And I also dislike the uninvolved requirement. Definitely a good idea in principle, but if I found out User:ArbComClerk alerted me after being asked to by User:PersonIAmHavingADisputeWith, I would feel like The Cabal is out to get me. I would rather be alerted by a single rogue admin/editor than by a cabal of admins/editors. HouseBlaster^talk 03:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not clear to me how exactly the new language is less prone to wikilawyering and complications than the old one. Instead, the awareness criteria should be abolished altogether. Sanctions exist to help the project work better, and if they are needed they should be imposed whether or not a problematic editor was "aware" that they can be imposed. Instead, editors should generally be made more aware that DS exists (perhaps with an edit notice in the vein of: "If you do stupid shit, you may be blocked without warning" - which is already true under normal admin authority.) Sandstein 07:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Sandstein that this is not an improvement and with others that involving the ARB clerks here is unnecessary. If it were up to me, I'd abolish awareness and replace it with a "benefit of clergy" type system - the first time someone is reported or an admin thinks a sanction is warranted, they can claim they weren't aware and we AGF and believe them. Now they are aware and next time there will be consequences. Name go in book, and so forth. This is essentially the current awareness requirements but without the option of an alert template. This way, someone who is making good edits in good faith need never be aware that DS / CT exist. GoldenRing (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand. "Clergy," what? One would still be alerting someone about the existence of a sanctions regime. Also, an alert standard which WP:GS will continue to use? Having a template for alerts simply standardizes them with agreed-upon links and summaries, which as I mention above, informal notifications might fall short of.

  Just because DS alerts were designed in a really stupid way (like the 12 month reminder absurdity) doesn't really take away from their basic function. Sandstein and GoldenRing's confusing proposal/s feels like a play on semantics. An alert by any other name... El_C 10:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Benefit of clergy should have been linked above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @El C: - perhaps I was not very clear. Sorry, shouldn't edit before coffee or try to make nuanced thoughts on mobile. What I mean is, do away with alerts altogether. If someone is reported for a DS violation, the first time they get to claim they were unaware. After that, they can either clean up their act or get reported again and the second time around they can't claim they were unaware. It does away with the mass leaving of templates on user pages, which has often been a point of friction where people feel it has been done in a pointy or offensive way or just plain don't understand that they are a normal part of editing certain topics. GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I'm not from a Christian background. Anyway, my point is that, ideally, an alert would precede such a 'report.' Would such a report be seen as less intimidating than an alert (whether the proposed gentle/revised/introductory alert or the one we have currently)? Also, I don't know what you mean by " mass leaving of templates on user pages" — alerts are given to users, on their user talk pages, on an individual (non-mass) basis. El_C 15:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The background is English law more than Christian as such - sorry, it was a bad metaphor to use. There definitely is a trade-off here - a report is more intimidating than an alert, but it would happen to a much smaller group of users who are already being disruptive anyway. About 20 users are alerted each day (random sample of the last couple of days) which is what I mean by "mass" templating. GoldenRing (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am fine with removing the "uninvolved" wording, I don't remember what prompted us to use that word anyway. I'm more interested to see what folks think about the scheme in general, as reform of awareness felt like one of the most important topics. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with this, the current rules are overly complex and are more often used to avoid sanctions rather than raising genuine issues with lack of awareness of discretionary sanctions. Hut 8.5
• Like others, I think awareness should be totally abolished, it's unnecessary bureaucracy that is counterproductive, inevitably escalating tensions rather than deescalating. All of the goals that awareness tries to achieve can be better achieved by a simple rule that everyone gets one (informal, unlogged) warning (from an admin) before being sanctioned in a topic area. That warning serves to provide awareness. Simple, effective, uncontroversial. Levivich 00:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea here is to basically get rid of the wikilaw around AWARENESS and you're suggesting going a half step further. If we can go a half step further I want to. I just don't understand how this would work in practice. For instance, how would I know if you've had your informal unlogged warning in a topic area? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Because you will have given the warning to me, or seen someone else give it to me, or searched my user talk page archives or user talk page history (and in reality, because whomever is complaint about me will likely point you to the warning if it exists, editors being the sleuths they are). And if you didn't give me the warning, or saw someone else do it, or you don't remember, or you can't find it in the archives/history, or don't have time/interest to go looking, then you give me a warning instead of sanctioning me. I don't mean a warning "about the topic area" I mean a warning about the specific sanctionable conduct. In other words, the system would work by essentially ensuring that an admin's first action would be a warning, and people would only be sanctioned when they ignored warnings. If an admin can't point to a warning, they give the warning. With some caveats/exceptions for emergency situations like runaway ongoing vandalism. (This should be done for all sanctions btw not just DS sanctions.) Levivich 01:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This basically does happen today for all poor behaviour: if an editor does something objectionable, they get warned. If enough warnings stack up in different areas, the community can have a discussion about imposing restrictions. Perhaps for contentious topics, administrators should have greater leeway to impose restrictions on the basis of all the received warnings across different behaviour, thus short-circuiting the need for a community discussion. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with isaac that what'd described there Levivich is something closer to normal order and that system would be a significant weakening of admin powers to remedy disruption. The wording as proposed gives several other ways as the basis for a sanction and the primary way - an alert - is easily findable via the filter log for any admin who wishes to see if an editor is eligible for sanction. So while slightly more formalized, I actually suggest the proposed system is less cumbersome for everyone than what it would take to codify the "warning first" system. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But if any editor can come up with a way to further make AWARENESS less wikilaw-like, without losing fairness, I'm going to be very receptive. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can we just educate everyone with a one-time message to check article talk pages to find out if the page is related to a contentious topic? (I haven't used the new user interface since creating my account, so I'm not sure if there is a good place to show this message somewhere during the account creation process. If there is, we should show it there to cover new users.) isaacl (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be abolished entirely. Shouldnt even need a warning prior to being sanctioned, because every single report at AE happens after a dispute in which reminders and warnings are already given, or because the behavior is so blatantly obvious NOTHERE level crap that the user should just be blocked on that basis. A truly new user editing in one of these areas will find out very quickly that the sanctions regime, whatever it is called, is in place, and their editing is subject to scrutiny. It is strictly used as a game to avoid sanctions on a technicality. And if ever some newbie is actually brought to AE for some issue that doesnt merit a NOTHERE block they will always get the benefit of the doubt from the reviewing admins anyway. The only thing the alerts serve to do, and have ever done, is let wikilawyers wikilawyer. Just trust the AE admins not to impose draconian sanctions on somebody not even aware of the possibility, but dispense of the but my last notification was 367 days ago bs. nableezy - 01:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm on board with suggestion to abolish "awareness" entirely: These common-sense behavioral standards and consequences are no different from the rest of Wikipedia or the Internet in general. Just about any website with user-posted content is going to block or restrict you if you don't follow the rules; everyone knows this and anyone who tells you otherwise is just trying to talk their way out of a well-deserved block. That said, if we're going to have an awareness requirement, I support the greatly improved wording and oppose the uninvolved editor requirement which is an unnecessary barrier and extra layer of bureaucracy. –dlthewave ☎ 04:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd prefer to see awareness abolished entirely, and instead replace it with a requirement that all articles that have any kind of active "special enforcement action" must have both a talk page banner explaining the restrictions as well as an editnotice explaining the restrictions. (If editnotices don't reliably display on mobile devices, then that's a technical issue that needs to be addressed.) But, the whole concept of posting awareness templates on user talk pages is quite bizarre, overly bureaucratic, and very un-wiki. For actions on individual editors, administrators should be given flexibility to assess the situation and act accordingly, either deciding to give the editor a warning or to immediately sanction them. Administrators already have this level of flexibility when it comes to indef blocking editors, I don't see why they can't be trusted to accurately assess the situation when handing out DS to editors. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the change, but I would much prefer that the awareness criteria is abolished entirely. An informal reminder should do the trick. ArbCom should not be designed to bicker with technicalities. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the idea of reducing the legalese, and strongly support the general approach here. I like removing the yearly expiration and the need to check when the last notice was given. I disagree with editors who advocate abolishing awareness entirely. Someone can genuinely be unaware, and should not face sanctions until they are aware (in the dictionary meaning of the word aware). Like others above, I think the involved/uninvolved distinction is a mistake, and should be removed completely. I agree with Seraphimblade that there would just be new wikilawyering over involvement. The process for involved editors to make those requests is far too complicated, and it doesn't really fix anything. Instead of someone complaining that they were warned by someone else who is involved, they'll complain that they were warned via a process that was initiated by that same involved editor. So you get a template from someone who is involved – big deal, get over it, and you can always raise the issue of harassment at AE if there is really any merit to it. I would also take the list of ways to be aware out of footnote k, and move it into the main text. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Although I have proposed that all editors be given a one-time notice telling them how to determine if a page is associated with a contentious topic, I am not completely convinced that awareness is necessary, particularly if the usual warning-before-action principle is followed by admins. Editors would still face the risk of sanctions for the same type of behaviour on non-contentious topics; it would just take a community discussion. So the editors to which an awareness alert makes a difference are ones who are unaware of how to identify that a page is in the scope of a contentious topic, deliberately choose to act disruptively, and are counting on the community not to reach a consensus on sanctions. I'm not sure the benefit/tradeoff ratio is sufficiently high. isaacl (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Abolish – Clarifying that I meant editors should treat everything like it's under DS and we can eventually eliminate ANI. Atsme 💬 📧 23:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC) <added underlined text 18:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If there's community consensus, it can enact this change to policy. isaacl (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire concept of awareness was created to insulate editors from the retributive use of enforcement processes by their editorial opponents. If D.S. was a decade-long experiment, then from it we have to conclude that it's actually impossible on Wikipedia to systemically protect editors from unpleasantness and underhandedness. All we can do is punish and stop that sort of behaviour as it occurs. If you edit a contentious topic, then you're going to risk being reported by someone whose motives are not good. Shielding you from that with regulations of Awareness is not worth the headache. I suggest getting rid of awareness. AGK (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

New template language, including standardized section headers. Only an WP:UNINVOLVED editor or administrator may place an alert.

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Awareness_of_contentious_topics

Proposed new templates

• Introduction to Contentious Topics
• Contentious Topics alert

Rationale

There is a tension between scaring off editors and getting them pay attention to a template. With the revised name hopefully the concept will be less scary. To further help, we are using a two-template solution. The template they get when they first start editing a CT, and get their first alert, is designed to be an introduction which truly explains CT. Further, it hopefully helps by having pre-designated section headings rather than whatever name an particular editor decides. Beyond that there is some recognition that the alert is always going to feel somewhat like a rebuke, hence the change to only allow subsequent alerts to be placed by an UNINVOLVED editor and by providing them a place that they may ask questions by 3rd parties instead of just the person who placed the template. Finally we note the option in the introduction template for them to mark themselves aware.

Alerts (feedback)[edit]

• Like. This is a good idea. El_C 17:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm certainly open to getting rid of the UNINVOLVED provision that @Vanamonde93, Femke, Guerillero, Doug Weller, and Firefangledfeathers: are discussing above. I'm going to reply down here because it actually gets at the UNINVOLVED piece, rather than mixing it with a broader discussion of what it means to be AWARE. I take pretty seriously the idea that an alert is always going to feel a little hostile. Having it from someone you might be in the middle of a dispute with is going to inflame tensions in a way that having an UNINVOLVED party would not. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've certainly given notices where I would have preferred an uninvolved editor do it instead. In addition to the middle-ground suggested by @ActivelyDisinterested above (which may still be too strict), we could make a the clerk's noticeboard optional? Femke (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I fear making it optional would mean that it would stop the issue it was meant to solve. Could we have a list of third party editors willing to post alerts? Editors could join and note what areas they are uninvolved in. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also back @ActivelyDisinterested's proposal. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think AD's middle-ground proposal would work well on heavily-visited articles, but even with relatively important articles (VIT5), discussions are often dialogues, with no third-party editor in sight. Femke (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't think this will do much good. The fundamental problem of the alert system, in my opinion, is that someone has to drop an alert on you manually (since automatic alerting is explicitly verboten), and the most likely time for someone to go out of their way to drop an alert is when you're misbehaving. As a side effect of that, because someone has to go out of their way to place the template, it's inherently a rebuke, regardless of how nicely the template is worded. Shifting the alerting to uninvolved editors doesn't significantly improve the situation, since I expect it to be rare that the uninvolved editor declines an involved editor's request to alert someone. I do like the standard heading and wording changes, but the alerting system is just broken. And as for making the arbclerk noticeboard a place to ask someone neutral to alert someone...not much of a fan of that. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My thinking was that the list of third party editors would be those willing to do more than just add the alert, something more human is what is needing in fraught situations. It would also relieve the need for the noticeboard requests. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The current text at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Awareness of contentious topics doesn't refer to an introductory message that can be placed by an involved editor. Can the text be updated? isaacl (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• So we're going from one to two awareness templates? DS has enough bureaucracy around awareness and talk page templating, and more is not needed. — Bilorv (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, the intent is to have a gentler (introductory) alert for newcomers, precisely so it doesn't come across as intimidating bureaucracy. El_C 01:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted above, the requrement of awareness should be abolished altogether as an unneeded complication. Sandstein 07:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Per above, just abolish alerts. GoldenRing (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also open to abolishing alerts, or making them bot-delivered. Femke (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Abolish the alerts, the concept of 'contentious topics' as distinct from other topics, and the entire 'discretionary sanctions' system. The whole thing just looks like some sort of Enabling Act that never got repealed.  Tewdar  09:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So, under this, uh... total abolition, will WP:ARBPIA, for example, no longer feature the WP:500-30 restriction? I mean, seeing as it will no longer exist under such a proposal, I presume it'll be undone. But why? Because it looks a certain way? And what about the WP:GS sanctions regime? Abolish them all, as well?

  Imagine a traffic light system that is really clunky — red light, green light, and five yellows. It doesn't work that great, but it still prevents most serious traffic accidents. Now, imagine abolishing all of the traffic lights as a solution.

  It isn't a fix and it isn't a serious proposition. And it comes across as reflexive and simplistic Dunning–Kruger. I'm open to alternatives, but nothing isn't an alternative. Also, Godwin already? Wow. El_C 10:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If admins need superpowers to deal with problematic behaviour, allow them discretion to do so without an extra layer of bureaucracy.Dunning–Kruger effect and Godwin's law, wow, that's me told. As for your traffic light metaphor, here's a different perspective.  Tewdar  12:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While we're on the subject, there's about a gazillion archaeogenetics articles here that would probably benefit from WP:500-30 protection, that don't have it. Can admins currently impose this rule on non-DS topics? I don't know, but if they can't, they should be able to. Apparently this is already possible? So the argument above about this rule doesn't seem to make any sense.  Tewdar  13:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Admins have the technical ability to give extended confirmed protection to articles. The policy constrains admins while DS has looser constraints. More broadly speaking if the community decided to relax policy and make DS options universal you're absolutely correct that a lot of this bureaucracy could go away. But that's a decision for the community to make and until it does I think the extra power that comes with DS needs to be met by extra layers of accountability, which inevitably comes somewhat in the form of bureaucracy. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I see what you're saying. I'm not hugely familiar with the development of these regulations, so it's very possible that I'm talking total unworkable nonsense, but thanks for not linking to WP:CIR or Dunning-Kruger. The only time I see these sanctions is when someone appears to be making some sort of thinly-veiled threat on my talk page.  Tewdar  16:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Tewdar, you know so little about what we're talking about here, yet you invoke Godwin's law in your first post here? WTF? El_C 15:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose I should have linked Enabling act instead, being a generic article and thus avoiding Godwin's law. Thanks for your great analogy and detailed response.  Tewdar  15:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever dude. El_C 15:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tewdar: you could request it for specific archaeogenetics articles - I agree a lot of them are a mess. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the ones that WorldCreatorFighter edits? 😁  Tewdar  15:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While I approve of the removal of the expiry time limit on awareness, I'm concerned about the uninvolved requirement for issuing awareness notices. As part of my regular editing in the GENSEX area, I issue a fair amount of alerts each month, primarily to newly created accounts. Between the start of May 2022 and today, I've issued around 40 such notices, based on edits to pages on my watchlist. While many of these notices are routine, some have been because an editor has been making disruptive contributions in the content area (links to AE cases can be provided on request, including cases where the timeliness of the alert was important). I feel that requiring INVOLVED editors to make a request for each notification at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard would both create an unnecessary burden on the five currently active clerks, as well as result in cases where an editor is being disruptive but cannot be appropriately sanctioned, beyond a warning, because the alert was not delivered in a timely manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As a humble uninformed periwinkler, perhaps I am unaware of all the complexities involved here, but... why can't we get a bot to do this stuff?  Tewdar  17:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Leaving aside that it seems to be forbidden by the draft policy for the moment, such a system would largely be unworkable. For most pages, it would require either an exhaustive and authoritative list of every page that is subject to one or more of the sanctions, or for every article that is subject to them to be appropriately tagged on the talk page, and for that list or those tags to be updated every time a new page is created or the article content starts to encompass a contentious topic. However because the sanctions system covers all edits about a contentious topic, on any page, there are many pages that aren't possible to tag, either because the contentious topic is nominally not related to the topic of the page, or is on a page that naturally won't be tagged (e.g, User, User Talk, WikiProject Talk, etc.).

  Because of the complexity in handing out alerts, due to the sheer number of edge cases which are covered but aren't bot friendly, human intervention and delivery of the alerts is required. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. That's a shame. Probably could do with a less personal touch.  Tewdar  17:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if you, or anyone else, could figure out a way for a Wikipedia bot to semantically analyse text to figure out whether or not an edit is relevant to one or more of the sanctions/contentious topics, I'd be happy to advocate for it to be replaced by a bot for most cases, and some noticeboard for edge cases where the bot fails for some reason. Unfortunately that level of textual analysis is beyond the capabilities of most bots, and even some cutting edge AI research. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Something like: if pageIsSanctioned(somePage) && hasNotBeenWarned(user) then sendHorridWarning(user, somePage) (might not compile...)  Tewdar  17:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The "uninvolved" wording is going to be a bit subjective as-is and it's going to inevitably lead to unnecessary discussions about whether or not an editor was involved when alerting someone else. These are going to take up editor time and I don't think that this change is going to make Wikipedia substantially more civil. We don't want to scare productive editors off from a topic because of them being templated, but also I don't think that anybody would consider it to be uncivil to get a neutrally worded template that expressly disclaims that there are any issues with their edits. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The removal of the expiry time limit or even abolishing such alerts sound like good ideas. But the UNINVOLVED requirement seems unhelpful. This is usually an involved contributor who can see that someone else needs such notification. I can foresee the following. An involved contributor A asks an uninvolved contributor B to notify contributor X because ... [a justification]. Do we need this? My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose to the idea of using DS/CT templates entirely. An informal reminder/discussion would be far more friendly and productive (e.g. "Hey, you are editing Israel, where tons of POV socks has caused headache to editors. Be careful.") No template would drastically reduce the amount of conflicts in the wiki. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll echo those above in saying that a less legalistic approach to awareness would be a very welcome change, but requiring alerters to be uninvolved is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If there's an issue with involved editors abusing DS alerts (which I haven't seen evidence of), then the solution would be a provision to account for alert misuse, or simply clarifying that alerts are not exempt from normal rules on harassment. (But again, I haven't seen evidence that that's an issue.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think almost all of this presents significant problems. As I said in the section above, I think the uninvolved/involved aspect is a mistake. Perhaps having different templates for "introduction" and for the "alert" is a good idea, although it leads to something like two levels of satisfying the requirement for awareness, which is going in the opposite direction of where we should be going. It's OK to have that yellowish background for notices on article talk pages. But don't do it for notices on user talk pages. There was a lengthy discussion about the user notices that are currently in use, and it led to the selection of a light blue background that is less threatening, less like a blinking light alert. Link. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• From a technical perspective, the drafters have done a good job of tightening up some of the loopholes. But this is just regulation gone mad. The sort of detail that we've descended into regulating is totally out of proportion, and it has started to take on a life of its own. Remember that D.S. were first conceived of in the noughties as a temporary measure to address problems in a single topic area. Coming up to two decades later, we've got detail rivalling an Act of Parliament, and I suggest that it is causing more harm than good. By harm, I mean that it discourages talented contributors from extensive engagement: who wouldn't run screaming from having to read the current draft before editing a website that wants them to volunteer for it? AGK (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

• Lower the level of consensus required for a successful appeal from "clear and substantial consensus" to "clear consensus"
• Provide clear standards of review on appeal

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Appeals_and_amendments

Rationale

Right now the only appeals that are accepted are ones where they are getting the equivalent of a ROPE/SO overturning or if there was some sort of serious procedural mistake in imposing the sanction. For even that to happen, there has to be one of the highest levels of consensus anywhere onwiki: namely, a "clear and substantial consensus". And if an admin reverses a restriction without meeting that standard they are eligible for desysopping on that single incident, so there's a strong incentive to not even come close to that very high bar. By maintaining the "clear consensus" language we hope that administrators won't be tempted to overturn an appeal without actual consensus behind them but will overturn when there's consensus even if it's not unanimous.

We hope to bring CT appeals in line with the kinds of standards that would normally cause an appeal to be successful at AN or ANI for normal admin actions. This change reduces the first-mover advantage a little bit by explicitly adopting a standard for AE/AN appeal that is pretty similar to a block appeal: an appeal should be granted if "the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption." But it doesn't go too far, because a clear consensus is still needed to remove the restriction.

We also codify the standard of review for ARCA appeals, providing fair warning to editors that it may be harder to appeal at ARCA than at AE/AN, which has been true but is not self-evident for appellants. Previously, the language implied that sanctioned editors were OK to just go to ARCA if desired, without any warning that that may not be advisable in certain circumstances. The new language still includes a lot of leeway for arbs to reverse bad actions.

Appeals (feedback)[edit]

• Given the underlying nature of AE, this seems like a good change and wording. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per the discussion below, I oppose such - I believe AN should remain an appellate board that editors can continue to use. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Like. I'm usually on the opposite side from Nosebagbear when it comes to AE, but for once, I agree. El_C 17:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is fine, but I would rather appeals only go to AE --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 — agreed. El_C 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Agree with the above that appeals should go to AE only. firefly ( t · c ) 20:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would echo Guerillero's comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't want to get into specific examples, but I've seen a few successful appeals of AE sanctions (these were not immediate; i.e., not on the merits; but appeals supposedly showing that the sanction wasn't needed) at AN that should not have been granted, and achieved consensus through a mixture of insufficient scrutiny and wikifriends showing up. Where the behavior had genuinely improved, I'm quite certain admins at AE would have agreed to lift the sanction; I see no downside, and considerable upside, for limiting appeals to AE. It also feels more tidy; most sanctions issued by authority of multiple editors can only be appealed to the same body. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see the difference between "clear" and "clear and substantial". More wikilawyering fodder. If you want to tinker with this, set quantitative criteria. Sandstein 07:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I also agree that there should be only one appeals venue. Sandstein 07:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ARCA is a legitimate venue for AE appeals, and should not be limited to AE. Another thought: decorum needs to be enforced in appeals and more attention paid to involved vs uninvolved iVotes. It was quite refreshing to see that decorum will be enforced at ArbCom's RfC for mass creation/AfD. Kudos! Atsme 💬 📧 02:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This suggestion, to establish a 'quantitative' definition of consensus, makes no sense. AGK (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar to Sandstein, I'm not really sure what this change in wording means. I don't think it means what the motivation says it means; I always took the "substantial" wording to mean that there had to be significant discussion and support to overturn; a consensus of two editors (or admins at AE) is clear but not substantial and that shouldn't be enough. Also opposed to restricting appeals to AE. The difference between the appeal venues has always been that at AE a consensus of admins is required to overturn while at AN a consensus of editors is required. Giving editors this choice means it is harder to argue in the future that a sanction only exists because all admins are bastards, out to get me, etc. I do think editors should have to choose one or the other though; an appeal that is denied at AE should not then be appealable to AN.
• More generally, I don't like making appeals easier. The original motivation for DS was to make it easier for admins to cut out disruption, and the committee committed to supporting enforcing admins except in egregious cases. I think making appeals easier is only going to reduce the pool of admins willing to work AE, and the lack of them has always been a frequent complaint. GoldenRing (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone whose AE sanctions have been appealed literally tens of times (of which maybe one or two were successful), I don't think it would actually change outcomes all that much. But indeed, it is a trade off between the appearance of fairness toward sanctioned users versus AE admin retention. El_C 16:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In successful appeals, eliminate use of the word rope and the terminology backsliding into behaviors that led to the ban

1. Editors are not dogs tied with a rope, or slaves with a noose around our necks, and that is what that terminology brings to mind;
2. backsliding is too vague and easily gamed. It needs to be precise as to what that editor did to be blocked or t-banned in order to not backslide into those same behaviors. When that terminology is used without stating a specific behavior, it indicates there was no actionable behavior, or that the actionable behavior was excused as not actionable in the appeal, and never should have been imposed in the first place. Atsme 💬 📧 02:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Think AN needs to remain an option for appeal, like it or not AE is trafficked by a much smaller population of active admins, and if one wants a wider participation to hear their appeal then they effectively need to go to a different venue. ARCA should also remain as a court of last resort so to speak. But only being able to appeal to the same group that imposed the sanction to begin with isnt very fair imo. nableezy - 16:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, obviously with reference to common sense. If this is implemented, Wikipediocracy would have no ground to exist anymore. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, I don't have preferences using either wording/appeal scope. I'm not involved enough with the system to understand its nuances. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• or is no longer an administrator is new. I think it's good for policy to address this scenario, but I'm not sure that's the best way (see also the line about former admins in § Administrators' role and expectations). Perhaps there should be some mechanism for an active admin to take over responsibility for a sanction issued by a former admin? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is already the case. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Modifications by administrators provides that Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh, swear I checked that section. Well, strike the bit about it being new, but I do think some mechanism to take over a former admin's sanction (without modifying it) would be nifty. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Like some others above, I'm not wild about appeals going to AN. It comes a little too close to letting the community amend ArbCom decisions. AE and ARCA are fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But they aren't arbcom decisions. We don't vote for "AE admins" in the way that we select arbs. Especially with AE mainly being handled by a small number of admins, AN acts as a viable safeguard Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Liberalising appeal of first-instance actions is sensible and welcome. AGK (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also #Sanction duration (feedback)

Proposal summary

Individual administrators now have access to a standard set of page and individual restrictions to enact, plus any that are designated for a particular topic area.

Proposed language

See parts of:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Individual_restrictions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Page_restrictions

See also

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Procedural summary

Rationale

There was a consensus in the community consultation that Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (AE) is working well, but there were some concerns about complexity and the power of individual administrators. Therefore, we have made a conscious decision to give the AE noticeboard more discretion while standardizing the powers of individual administrators. The "standard set", which contains all the restrictions that are regularly used, should prevent single admins from using "bespoke" restrictions (but if they're really needed, they can be done at AE). The most commonly used restriction not included in the standard set are RfC/RM moratoriums, with the thinking being that there needs to be some form of consensus (in this case at AE) to interfere with our consensus decision making structures. Individual topic areas can also have additional standard restrictions (that single admins can use), an example of which is the source restrictions for Holocaust in Poland.

Single-admin enforcement actions (feedback)[edit]

• This seems like a good idea. I assume this means individual admins have locus standi to bring disputes to AE requesting bespoke restrictions on a page, for instance. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. Having a clear list of what an individual admin can do is IMO going to help reduce the barrier to entry for admins using CT / DS. It also helps make clear what needs to come to the AE noticeboard and what can be dealt with by an uninvolved admin. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems good, I would assume that any editor in good-faith could bring a request for a more specific AE bespoke restriction (or a standard one, if they either couldn't (userright) or weren't confident of doing so themselves). Perhaps a slight tweak of the language that AE can set any time they want, but can also set a timescale (including the normal 1-year) where it becomes amendable by any individual admin. (I think this would fall under the reasonable intent, just could be clearer) That would be comparable to a not-rare AN decision that one of its decisions can be handled by any admin without needing any change to come back to the board. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nosebagbear can you give a go as to how you would slightly tweak for this edge case? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set above and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project and may do so for any length of time including indefinitely. AE may also specify a minimum length of time for a restriction after which they may be amended by any uninvolved admin as below. ?? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would rather that things that had a consensus to impose had a consensus to remove. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, "bespoke" means custom. I learn a new word. El_C 18:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would make any BRD/consensus is required restriction have to go through AE. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What? Where do you get your clothes made? Next you'll say you don't have a valet, either! GoldenRing (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I right in that an admin can unilaterally impose a restriction of no more than one year, but a consensus can impose longer sanctions? The problem with this is that often, there aren't enough admins participating to form a rough consensus. This comes and goes in waves, but it is very common to have a few weeks stretch with almost no admin working the board, then a few weeks with several. I understand the logic, and not arguing against it, I'm just saying there may be unforeseen consequences because of a (common) lack of participation at AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to be repetitive, but I am also arguing against the logic of it. Which to say: I support lowering the appeal threshold, but feel like this will tie our hands for naught.

  But indeed, when I was more active at AE, I often experienced the same thing: case after case, week after week, where I was pretty much the sole admin. El_C 23:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's up to the Committee how much authority they want to delegate to individual admins, and there are good arguments for why it should not be too much. But as noted above, in the event that there is limited admin participation at AE, the one-year limit might prove problematic. Perhaps a facilitated appeals procedure might be an alternative (on appeal after a year, individual sanctions expire unless there is consensus to maintain them). Sandstein 07:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is there concern that admins are imposing esoteric sanctions off their own bat? I haven't been around for a couple of years, but in my time working AE I would have thought the list of sanctions authorised for individual admins to use would have covered about 99.9% of them, at least. So listing the sanctions that individual admins can issue seems to be a solution looking for a problem. In the very rare case that some other sanction is issued, it would almost certainly be an attempt for an admin to impose something less than one of these standard sanctions; to that extent, this seems likely to encourage them to impose a harsher, standard sanction than trying to roll something custom to suit a particular situation. Of course they can always propose something at AE, but as others have noted, admin traffic there is unpredictable. Lack of admins willing to participate has long been a complaint of those who do work there, and several fairly high-profile admins have become burned out at least in part because of the pressure of working that board. By the same token (and per others above), limiting individual admin actions to a year doesn't seem a good move. GoldenRing (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When I first started contributing to AE, I devised several custom sanctions. However, these have proven to have been ineffective at best and harmful at worse, so I stopped doing that. El_C 16:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha! Yes. 4 years ago I tried out a few custom sanctions, most notably a "no personal comments" sanction that forbade certain editors from making accusations and personal remarks about other editors on Talk Pages and in edit summaries. (Editors violating the sanction could escape any enforcement by simply striking the offending content, and as far as I can remember, it always ended that way.) Yes, it was an attempt to impose something lighter than a standard sanction. The "Enforced BRD" rule was also a custom sanction intended to be a lighter alternative to the "Consensus Required" sanction. So you can probably blame me for the above :-) ~Awilley (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And you know I do! At great fuckin' length. Much love. El_C 17:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Awilley: I will be 100% honest. When I read the phrase "The "standard set"... should prevent single admins from using "bespoke" restrictions", I immediately thought of you and the Auto-boomerang sanction (*shudders* Not your best idea). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe I ever used that one. It was just an idea to address users who abuse noticeboards to intimidate their opposition. ~Awilley (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You did. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: How would editors request an individual admin action or draw attention to a page where one might might be needed? In the past I've seen an administrator lurk around a page or topic and hand out escalating warnings/bans as needed; this was very effective, and it would be great to be able to request it without going through AE. This seems to be a big thing that's missing from the current system and would be helpful to include going forward. –dlthewave ☎ 03:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dlthewave, do you mean outside of the DS system? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not exactly; individual admin actions are within the current DS system (an admin can unilaterally hand out escalating blocks and warnings if they come across a problem) but there's not really a way to request that an admin do this. –dlthewave ☎ 01:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A few thoughts: 1) Per GoldenRing, I'm not sure how necessary the single admin / rough consensus split is, but I also don't think it'd cause any harm to do it that way. 2) Addressing Dennis' concern, perhaps there should be a footnote saying that "rough consensus" encompasses scenarios where only one admin comments on a thread and no one else shows up after a considerable period of time? 3) It seems that this would allow a rough consensus at AE to exceed the bounds of a topic area—for instance, a topic ban from "all ethnic conflicts" or "American politics since 1900". Is that intentional? 4) I'm not sure I see the logic of an AE page protection ceasing to be AE after a year. I get it with other kinds of page restriction; but, with protections, half the point of invoking AE is so you can protect a page for longer than normal. I think protections should be exempted from the renewal clause, or at least treated differently (maybe a three- or five-year timer instead of one-). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

Some powers are now restricted to use by a rough consensus of administrators at AE:

• Taking actions outside the "standard set" of restrictions
• Imposing individual restrictions for longer than one year
• Imposing page restrictions that can't be reversed by any administrator for longer than one year (unless renewed)

Proposed language

See parts of:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Individual_restrictions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Page_restrictions

See also

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Procedural summary

Rationale

There was a consensus in the community consultation that Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (AE) is working well, but there were some concerns about complexity and the power of individual administrators. Therefore, we have made a conscious decision to give AE more discretion while standardizing the powers of individual administrators. To compensate for this increased workload and align the standards with current standards for actioning AE reports, AE only needs a rough consensus of uninvolved administrators (a substantially lower standard than the clear consensus needed for appeals; see below). We are also hoping that AE can be a way admins interested in helping out in contentious topics can "learn the ropes" before acting as an individual administrator.

Arbitration Enforcement special enforcement actions (feedback)[edit]

• I'm not sure why indef site-wide blocks can't be set by a rough consensus of administrators at AE. I like literally everything else besides that. It's just weird to me that we already have the sort of rough AE consensus that (to use the most recent examples) editors like SaintAviator or Mark612 should be indef blocked, but these blocks have to happen as individual admin actions. It would simplify the process a lot more if these indef blocks just happened as Arbitration Enforcement individual restrictions by default. That wouldn't stop an admin from specifying an indef block as being an individual admin action for less controversial cases, but it would let a group of admins be able to make the block appealable via § Appeals and amendments rather than Wikipedia:Appealing a block and ((Unblock)) (where an appeal is extremely unlikely to be granted anyways if the editor contributes to contentious topics). We're not talking about granting AE admins the ability to indef siteban; just giving them the ability to impose an indef site-wide block where the path back to good standing is made much clearer.
  The alternative, in my opinion, is going to just be blocks like the one for Mili977 where the first year is going to be an Arbitration Enforcement individual restriction while the rest of the block is an individual admin action made outside of these procedures. That makes the whole process a lot more confusing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. Being able to impose indef AE blocks seems a good idea. Perhaps, if this is too controversial, to do this a clear consensus could be instead needed than the rough consensus? In theory if this is not desirable this could be done like page protection (in that it's AE for a year and then not after that) as suggested by MJL above. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just let us do indef blocks at AE rather than the 1 year/indef hack that we currently have --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, they seem to be saying 1 admin can do up to 1 year, a consensus can do indef. The problem, of course, is a lack of participation. If you are the only admin working a case for over 72 hours, are you a consensus of 1? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown per the immediately below, I think it's "consensus can do indef page related functions and consensus can do indef editor sanctions except for blocks" Nosebagbear (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, if consensus is supposed to be required for more consequential sanctions, these should include indef blocks. Also, it should be made clear that sanctions enacted by AE consensus may only be altered or undone by AE consensus. Sandstein 07:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm more relaxed about the 1 year limit on AE blocks. In practice what has happened is that admins have made indef blocks with the first year as an AE action. Any other admin seeing that generally has a pretty high bar to unblock and will frequently bring it to AN rather than doing it unilaterally. IMO this works pretty well and in practice allowing AE to issue indef blocks as AE actions wouldn't change much. GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Though I do think that what constitutes a "rough consensus" might become a point of litigation. GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but this is scary talk. Maybe this discussion needs to involve the wider community for input? Picture yourselves being POV Railroaded - and I have seen that happen to an admin or two over the years - nobody is immune. Think about these punishments with you on the receiving end. What happened to AGF, and being kind & understanding toward each other? Do we actually have editors on WP whose behavior is so unconscionable that we have to take such strong measures? I'm getting the impression that my flame retardant underwear has outlived its usefulness, and I had better switch to Kevlar. Atsme 💬 📧 00:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Atsme: I'm a bit confused by this comment. What measure are you objecting to exactly? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I will do my best at brevity, beginning with the definition of arbitration: "the hearing and determining of a dispute or the settling of differences between parties by a person or persons chosen or agreed to by them": [Example:] Rather than risk a long strike, the union and management agreed to arbitration. ArbCom is often referred to as "SCOTUS." I am not aware of any RL arbitration method that results in sentencing – they work to find resolution, and settle the dispute. And please, do not try to convince me that site banning, indef blocks and t-bans are not sentences or that any of it actually resolves disruption. If it did, we would not be here now. These types of draconian measures are, more often than not, the cancellation of opposing voices, especially strong voices with strong arguments (opinions). From my perspective, which is based on the experience of others, and in part, my own experiences, such measures are taken with the expectation that, one day, those editors will submit to the powers that be with a convincing round of groveling to either agree with the prevailing consensus, or STFU; thus the use of ROPE, and ambiguous closes. Discussions about indef site banning, blocking, and extending the reach of individual admins under the umbrella of DS/AE is not arbitration in the true sense of the word. While I love and respect many of our admins and trust them explicitly to do the right thing, and make good judgment calls, not all admins have earned such trust because the bottomline is that we are dealing with anonymity and the limits of volunteerism; even Jesus Christ had enemies. ArbCom is supposed to arbitrate, but it appears that rather than getting to the root of an issue they are treating symptoms by enforcing punishment or delegating their responsibility as a committee to a single administrator, and that is what I object to most of all. I want a fair and reasonable committee of arbitrators who are actually arbitrating the case rather than hunting for reasons to impose sentences, and that is how I perceive these discussions. I want to see an ArbCom that settles disputes in way that will discourage future disputes without muting, canceling or punishing those involved. I was so excited when I presented my ACE2020 and 2021 because we had a pool of fresh, new administrators with critical thinking skills, each with a demeanor that spoke volumes to their being seekers of resolution in the same manner as RL arbitration that is designed to settle disputes, not punish those involved. It makes no sense to me to take a dispute, one that cannot be resolved by other means, to arbitration for a fair and reasonable resolution by a committee only to have it thrown back to the community for a single administrator to decide via DS/AE. A disturbance actually can be arbitrated and resolved, but when it is not done properly so that the underlying issues are actually resolved, it becomes a disruption. We can infer that arbitration is not providing the best option because of these persistent interruptions. I implore the committee to reconsider its strategy and carefully investigate the causes of interruptions, disturbances, and/or disruption. ArbCom exists to treat the underlying causes rather than treating only the symptoms which our administrators can handle. Eliminating opposition tends to create a homogenous community, which negates NPOV, and that is what we see happening. When influential people with millions of followers tweet that Wikipedia has become a weapon, this indicates that change is necessary. ArbCom is the last resort for adopting the necessary changes that will return us to neutrality's original values. I can only hope that my voice is heard. In closing, I will simply say that I appreciate ArbCom allowing us to participate in this topic, but I will not be contributing further because I just said all that I've wanted to say. Good luck in finding the proper course of action. Atsme 💬 📧 12:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thus when you wrote earlier that discretionary sanctions should apply to all articles, were you thinking of a more limited form, where specific additional sanctions would be become available for administrators to use at their own discretion on any article? isaacl (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Standardisation of discretion is a self-refuting idea, and its use here perhaps exposes the fundamental error that may sit within this whole endeavour (refer to my comments above for more on the error). AGK (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

Single administrators may impose individual restrictions for up to one year and page restrictions that lose "AE action" status (protection from modification by other admins) after one year unless renewed.

A rough consensus at AE may impose any restrictions indefinitely, except for blocks which continue to have a 1 year limit.

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Individual_restrictions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Page_restrictions

See also

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Procedural summary

Rationale

There was a consensus in the community consultation that Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (AE) is working well, but there were some concerns about complexity and the power of individual administrators. Therefore we have made a conscious decision to give AE more discretion while standardizing the powers of individual administrators by limiting them to 1 year for special enforcement actions. Old page restrictions should be updated and reviewed by other admins without having to go through the hassle of a full AE thread.

Sanction duration (feedback)[edit]

• Oh no, timed TBANS, this is gonna suck. I guess we'll get problem actors do the annual thing (unless AE gauntlet). El_C 17:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with El C. I guess the upside is that most everything will go though AE, because a 1 year topic ban isn't worthwhile. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I read the proposal, AE will still have the power to impose indefinite topic bans (A rough consensus at AE may impose any restrictions indefinitely, except for blocks) - unless I'm missing something? firefly ( t · c ) 16:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  On further reading I share the concern around restricting indef TBANs as individual actions and am unsure what the change is intending to prevent. firefly ( t · c ) 19:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the change is meant to remove the ability for individual administrators from being able to apply indef topic bans through DS/CT. Now, instead of unilaterally being able to indef topic ban a user, the administrator will have to seek rough consensus to do so at AE. That's just my interpretation. Though, some folks here have pointed out that admins could just re-apply the same topic ban every year (which I hope was not the intention of the drafters). They should probably clarify –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) edited 19:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I should’ve been clearer - I understand that part, I’m just not sure why that is being proposed. Is there a concern of individual admins having too much power in that respect? I’ve not heard that concern raised before but then again I’m not as much of an AE regular as some others commenting. firefly ( t · c ) 19:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I share this concern, not so much because we need discretionary power so much as that time-limited bans are generally not worth the effort of going to AE, because they are rarely helpful. Also: if admins at AE can impose indefinite TBANs, surely they should also be allowed to impose indefinite p-blocks; the one-year limit ought to apply only to site-wide blocks, right? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not too sure about individual admins not having the ability to place indef TBANS. However, I understand the rationale for it and coupled with the rough consensus needed at AE this makes the impact of this less of an issue. This is something I'd like to see reviewed in a years time if implemented, as this may add lots of extra AE reports due to admins taking something to AE so that there is the possibility of an indef TBAN. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't like the limitation. This forces a consensus when you often can't get enough participation to form one, forcing a 1 year when an indef is called for. I've made this point elsewhere, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With few exceptions, I've stopped handing out timed TBANS years ago, so I estimate that, for the most part, I won't bring these to AE. I'll just TBAN for a year, which will largely delay the problems as many sanctioned users will simply wait out the ban or otherwise return to the topic area disruptively once it expires. And then, I guess, TBAN for another year.

The notion that timed TBANS have proven largely ineffective has been a growing (and I'd say, now dominant) trend among admins at AE for years now. It's curious to witness the disconnect between ARBCOM and AE admins here. But that could be explained by the fact that many (most?) arbitrators were never AE regulars so as to pick up on what happens on the ground floor of the AE ecosystem. El_C 22:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this different to the individual admin action section above? Anyway, per others, I don't think this is a good idea, though I'd be more willing to use time-limited bans than others for first offences. GoldenRing (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Page restrictions: OK, so they're immutable for a year, and then any admin can change them. That's a good first step. I would prefer that the sanctions expire on their own. That could be done with the template (when the date > expiration date it the template reverts to displaying just the regular advisory template.) Last year I removed stale page sanctions from over 75 pages and it took me around 6 hours of editing over 3 days (not including the work of tracking down the pages with stale sanctions). Many of these sanctions had been in place for years, and I was able to remove them because the admins who placed them had retired or were no longer admins. It was a lot of unnecessary and tedious work. ~Awilley (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A second, last-minute comment about page restrictions: I personally think there's a good case for doing away with page restrictions altogether. Certain pages and topics become problem areas when editors or groups get entrenched in pushing or defending their POVs. These groups of editors are difficult to deal with. Sanction one editor and you have to deal with not only their wrath but the wrath of their tribe. It's time consuming and draining. The easy fix is to just drop sanctions on the pages they edit. This punishes both "sides" equally so people don't complain. And the page sanctions provide bright-line rules like 1RR that are much easier to enforce than dealing with tendentious editing and POV pushing directly. The problem with page restrictions though is that they punish everybody, not just the bad actors. When an article is locked down with excessive page restrictions, the good editors—who aren't heavily invested in the topic—get burnt out by the high mental load associated with article edits (tracking your reverts and everybody else's to make sure you don't accidentally revert something that someone else reverted 5 days ago putting you in danger of a "consensus required" block) combined with endless stonewalling and circular discussion on the talk page. They often end up moving on to other areas, while the heavily invested editors stick around and find ways to game the rules. In terms of our goal of writing an encyclopedia, this is the opposite of what we want. In any case, I would beg the arbs in charge of this to at least consider automatic expiration of page-level sanctions. I'm certain that at this moment there are scores of pages languishing away under unneeded sanctions because nobody has the time and motivation to deal with them. (I have the motivation, but currently lack the time and bandwith because of my current family/parenting situation.) ~Awilley (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Individual admins should be able to impose indefinite restrictions. Timed topic bans have limited utility and may well end up just reconsidering the case in a year's time. Hut 8.5 07:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see two problems with requiring a rough consensus of administrators to impose certain sanctions – in particular, longer ones. The first is that WP:AE is not a particularly well-staffed venue and, at times, there are very few active administrators, which, as others have said, would make it impossible to impose those sanctions. Also, I note that you do not define what a rough consensus of administrators required. How many administrators are needed? Two are enough? Three? In my opinion, giving the authority to any single administrator to impose unilateral sanctions that would otherwise require consensus was the key feature that made DS successful. Limiting that feature, in my opinion, would make special enforcement actions less useful, in the absence of any evidence that this power is being misused. Separately, right now even when a sanction is imposed as a result of an AE thread where multiple administrators are in agreement, the sanction is considered an individual action of the imposing admin. If we start requiring a rough consensus to impose certain sanctions, then those will – clearly – no longer be individual actions and, so, all administrators who have expressed their view in the original discussion will be considered involved, because they were part of that rough consensus. Considering that there are few administrators who are routinely active at AE, if all those who have commented on a previous request are considered involved, then who's left to hear an appeal? Salvio 10:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

Explicitly states when individual restrictions can be used.

Proposed language

"Administrators may impose restrictions on editors (“individual restrictions”) in contentious topics who do not follow the expectations listed in #Editing a contentious topic as a special enforcement action." (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Individual_restrictions)

Rationale

This makes clear that restrictions are applied for failure to meet the expectations.

Individual restrictions: when used (feedback)[edit]

While that may seem apparent and even redundant, we found that new editors are often confused about when they can be restricted, and want to make the standard clear. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓} 22:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The anchor link Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#editing a contentious topic doesn't lead to anywhere specific. isaacl (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the source, it works with an initial upper case letter: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Editing a contentious topic isaacl (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@isaacl:  Fixed –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• How does this interact with blocking to enforce the 500/30 rule? Or blocking to enforce a TBAN etc. GoldenRing (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For me, in a complementary way. Both of the examples of blocks are for a failure to meet expectations. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, simpler and clear language is better. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

Clarifies that page restrictions may be enforced by reverting noncompliant edits (whether AWARE or not) and by restricting the editor who violated the restriction (only if AWARE and there was an editnotice).

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Page_restrictions

Rationale

It was not previously clear that page restrictions could be enforced by reversion, and that those reversions are administrative actions if performed by uninvolved administrators.

Page restrictions: enforcement (feedback)[edit]

Yes, seems uncontroversial and spelling out what should have previously been obvious. — Bilorv (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this make that revert an AE action? Does that mean that no other editor can then revert the revert? That seems to me to be the implication. But if the edit was reverted because of the editor rather than the edit (eg to enforce a TBAN or the 500/30 rule) then this becomes a minefield for other editors who then find themselves reverting AE actions. GoldenRing (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that would by definition make the revert an irreversible AE action. Just like always, an edit by an editor who shouldn't have made it in the first place can be reverted, but if someone else who is permitted to make the edit is willing to take responsibility for it, they can reinstate it. That would just bring it into line with current policy. It also clarifies that making such a revert doesn't make an otherwise uninvolved admin into an "involved" one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, ditto to Bilorv. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

Makes explicit that

• Warnings may be logged
• Logged warnings may be appealed
• Logged warnings may be imposed even if the editor was not previously aware of CT

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Warnings

Rationale

Warnings at AE have been a particularly contentious flashpoint. We seek to give firmer guidance on how warnings work, and enable them to be more effectively used to justify future sanctions.

Warnings (feedback)[edit]

• Sorry, to check. Does a warning to a non-notified user that is placed in the AE log, still need the full (if slightly reduced) "clear consensus of the non-involved admins at AE" to remove? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nosebagbear: That is my read -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would go further encourage admins to log warnings at DSLOG. This is where an admin will normally look to see if there has been prior relevant action. I'd come close to saying warnings must be logged or admins should disregard them in future but perhaps that's a bit too bureaucratic. GoldenRing (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Warnings come in many varieties and the idea that only logged warnings would matter would lead to some absurd outcomes. Ex: "Five different editors have warned this user about five different edits. But no one logged a warning so there's no pattern of problems here I guess." Right now all warnings exist in a sort of weird space. This makes clear that warnings can be an outcome, have the same protection as other DS actions, and can be appealed but I like the idea that all warnings don't have to be this. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is fine. I generally issue two kinds of warnings at AE, formal and informal. Formal is logged and they get the sanction template on their talk page, with "warning" as the sanction. So it makes sense that they could appeal that, as it is a type of mild sanction. Informal warning (which is akin to a "regular admin action, not logged") shouldn't be appealable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As Dennis Brown said, that seems more to just clarify current practice, which is fine. AE threads are sometimes closed with an informal warning/advice, which usually indicates "You haven't done something sanction-worthy yet, but you probably should cool it since you're headed that direction", while a logged/formal warning is more "You already could be sanctioned, but you're getting a last chance; if something like this happens again you will get sanctioned." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, ditto to others. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

Step by step instructions for administrators performing a special enforcement action

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Admin instructions

Rationale

Several administrators have noted that placing a sanction under DS is intimidating and so some avoid doing so out of fear of getting it wrong. These instructions are intended to provide step by step instructions, in a similar way that we have admin instructions for other technical/complicated tasks (e.g. closing an AfD discussion).

Administrator instructions (feedback)[edit]

• Definitely a great thing to have. I think a great barrier to entry for admins is currently the amount of text to read to even begin to understand the DS / CT procedures. Having this summary page just for admins cuts out the explanatory material which is useful but not always needed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, step-by-step instructions are useful for those new to a task and those experienced alike, as it's always easy to forget a step or get lost in a flood of tabs. — Bilorv (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The logging instructions are inaccurate. Policy is "It is important for administrators to clearly and unambiguously label their actions as special enforcement actions". The proposed instruction is "it is best practice to note in the log". It's not "best practice", it's required. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps the instructions to update the enforcement log can be moved before the instructions on placing the restriction/notifying the editor, to help ensure the log is kept up-to-date. isaacl (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For me, logging is the last thing I do, so I have the diffs to link in the log. Logging first isn't a good idea. I typically Close Report (with intention), Sanction (ie: block or use the bit otherwise, if needed), Notify user on their page, Log with diffs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, in a quick survey of some of the logs you left, I see that you have linked to the close statement, which is in accordance with the draft instructions. Thus the log can be created after the close but before other administrative steps, such as notifying the user of a personal sanction. I'm not strongly opinionated about changing the order of the instructions, particularly if the draft "Logging" section is modified such that logging isn't the step that causes a sanction to take effect. isaacl (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Manual logging is a pain, it's easily forgotten / error-prone, and it shouldn't be necessary. I'd rather see the manual log pages removed, and replaced with categories. Make it mandatory to place ((Ct/talk notice)) on the talk page of articles with active actions, and add categories to that template. Same thing with ((CT sanction)) template (along with language that the template must not be deleted from the user's talk page until the restrictions have been lifted). It's 2022, we shouldn't need to manually maintain a log page. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My first impression is that this wouldn't work logistically and would raise more problems than it would solve, but I think I could be convinced. I'm definitely open to these ideas about how to make logging more onerous. Just thinking out loud here – what would you think about a bot that automatically logs restrictions and posts to the enforcing administrator's talk page for review? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  L235, ...how to make logging more onerous? Oh, I can think of so many ways we could do that! (In all seriousness though, I don't think the current setup is all that onerous to begin with. Given that applying an AE sanction is not a terribly common task, making an edit to log it is not a massive burden. If it were something people routinely had to do a hundred times a day, that would be a different story.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought about suggesting a template-based solution to automatically log sanctions. However with the recipes for imposing restrictions being provided, I thought it was a bit of a wash. Dropping off a single line in the log, as most of them are, might feel like less work than using a template and double-checking its parameters to see that they haven't changed and you've gotten their values right. If the administrators agree upon a template-based solution, though, I'm all for it. isaacl (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there anything else like this on WP that is still manually logged? Requiring manual logging will guarantee that there are errors. Some admins will inevitably forget to log some actions, or they'll accidentally log them in the wrong place, or just won't be aware of the logging requirements, etc. In other words, manual logging is subject to human error. The fact that applying an AE sanction is not a common task actually increases the risk of mistakes, since it's something that most admins don't do frequently. Also, there doesn't appear to be any requirement to remove entries from the log when the action is no longer in place. This means that the log is only evidence that an action occurred sometime in the past on that page, but is not necessarily evidence that there is an active action on the page. I'm not sure I understand why it's beneficial to keep a log like that rather than a live category that shows all pages that have some kind of restriction. I suppose the log might make it easier to figure out which admin implemented the restrictions, but I'm not sure why that information is so important that it needs to be prioritized. If a talk page banner and editnotice were required, you could go back through the revision history of those pages to figure out which admin implemented the restrictions (and which admin ended the restrictions, in case they're different). Implementing a category tracking system based on required templates would be technically simple to do. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think this would be complex enough to require a bot task. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I agree with automated tracking. I defer to administrators, though, to agree upon what procedure works best for them. isaacl (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's probably a Twinkle custom module waiting here for someone to code, something that can add in to the block pages and potentially add choices for topic bans etc. Izno (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should you need to have supplementary instructions? AGK (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

Each contentious topic will have a subpage of the main Contentious Topics procedure listing relevant information including:

• other topic-wide remedies (e.g. ARBPIA-wide 500/30 and 1RR)
• standard templates for the topic area
• any guidance for admins from ArbCom
• any ARCAs or other clarifications that affect the topic
• any additions to the "standard set" for the topic

Proposed language

Example at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Contentious topics/Genetically modified organisms

Rationale

This is an innovation from community-authorized discretionary sanctions (aka GS). Each one of those has a subpage that includes relevant information, templates, and guidance (see e.g. w:en:Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19). This is missing from ArbCom DS; the combination of a large set of templates, informal knowledge, and hidden documentation makes it hard for many admins to enforce discretionary sanctions as they exist now. For example, ARBAP2 relies on w:en:Template:American politics AE and w:en:Template:American politics AE/Edit notice, but those templates are not linked from the case page or any central ArbCom page. Additionally, oftentimes relevant ARCAs get buried with time, which makes those clarifications useless; keeping information about them handy will provide clarity.

Sub-pages for each Contentious Topic (feedback)[edit]

• Is the expectation that the clerks are going to maintain these? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guerillero In concert with the Arbs, yes. Though I'm not sure that there will be much work outside of when cases/ARCAs get closed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As a minor editorial note for the rationale, as defined at Wikipedia:General sanctions, general sanctions are sanctions that apply to all editors, versus personal sanctions. Community-authorization for use of discretionary sanctions is one form of general sanctions. isaacl (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this will be useful. The current list of topics links to remedies that are probably not clear to new editors (because of the language used and the surrounding sections being usually unrelated to the DS). Having a dedicated page with content just about the CT would be useful and a good thing to be linked instead of the remedy in templates or editnotices used. Having separate pages for each CT will also likely decrease the confusion for editors having to work out what does and doesn't apply for this case. Whether the clerks maintain this or the community does would be nice to know, as some sections (like the relevant ARCAs) make sense to be clerk maintained but others (such as maybe the notes) could be something maintained by admins or editors who play a part at AE in this CT. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Adds to the paperwork for maintenance, but indeed there is a huge problem with being able to retrieve information about sanctions that you have no involvement with. — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this would be a good change, despite increased maintenance burden. I remember searching for such a page when I became aware of DS, and being surprised that none existed. Femke (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand the spirit of the proposal, but I would like that subpages are made only for the most contentious topics (i.e. Israel-Palestine, etc.) For these other topics, it should be formatted to our existing table (Wikipedia:General sanctions) instead. Having a subpage for every topics is fine for me but it would increase maintenance burden like others have said. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In theory for these standard pages we should be able to use some kind of template. This would make maintenance to the "standard" DS pages easier and for specifics this can be updated like normal. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

All previously enacted DS will be governed by the new procedures.

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Continuity

Rationale

While we're making substantial changes, we want continuity. This is a reform, not a repeal. The one exception is that page restrictions would be eligible for repeal or renewal under this procedure.

Existing sanctions/continuity (feedback)[edit]

• What does this mean for eg indefinite TBANs imposed by individual admins? Do they become time-limited to one year and, if so, what is the effective starting date? GoldenRing (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It means that indefinite TBANS by individual admins continue just like all other existing DS. The one exception is that page restrictions would be eligible for repeal or renewal under this procedure. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The summary here is a bit awkwardly worded, but yes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Legalese, but not oppose. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

• Change "authorisation" to "designation" of contentious topics
• Minor tweaks to how conflicts between wordings are handled

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Designation

Rationale

For consistency.

Designation (feedback)[edit]

• Seems rather minor, but ok. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

Reducing and simplifying the language around logging

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Logging

Rationale

Part of an effort to make the language easier to understand for all editors while not losing nuance (i.e. footnotes about edge cases). Specific procedures about the creation of the log can be moved to the Clerks procedures page.

Logging (feedback)[edit]

I don't agree with a blanket rule that a special enforcement action must be logged before it takes effect. If, for example, a user is notified that they are being banned from editing a topic, I don't think a delay in logging the action should delay the ban. Over time it could become a factor in judging awareness, as an editor might forget their specific bans after a while. In a similar manner, if a 1-revert rule restriction is enacted on a page, and an appropriate edit notice and talk page notice are added, I do not feel the log should be considered an essential element in determining awareness. (I don't think it's reasonable to expect editors to check the log to look for page restrictions for every page they edit.) I appreciate the desire to have a stick to induce admins to update the log. Hopefully, though, the admin instructions page will be enough of a carrot to keep the log up to date. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Isaacl: When I was working AE, I honestly thought this was how it already worked. I'd whack an editor if they took advantage of a few minutes' delay in the logging an action to make disruptive edits, but I'd also make damn sure my actions were logged pretty sharpish - IIRC often before notifying the editor in question. GoldenRing (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To put it another way, editors should comply with restrictions that they're aware of. Telling someone about the restrictions you've imposed is generally considered to be strong evidence that they're aware (assuming signs of activity on the site by the editor, as well as a history of engagement with discussion methods such as use of talk pages), at least in the short to intermediate term. Logging should be done for the benefit of others (including administrators seeking to enforce restrictions) and to facilitate awareness for the longer term, but I do not feel it should control when restrictions take effect. isaacl (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Isaac is correct here. Logging is not what makes it official, notification is. Logging is so we can quickly and easily see if a similar sanction has taken place, and to document our actions. Logging is important, but the logging itself is NOT the "admin action", the giving of sanction, closing the discussion, and notification of the sanction is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I absolutely agree with the above. Having a correct and complete log is important, but it is not the log entry that should make the sanction "count". When the editor is clearly notified that they are subject to the sanction, that is the point at which they should be expected to comply with it or face further action. Admins who routinely forget to log should be reminded to do that, and then reprimanded if it still continues, but a simple failure to do a bit of paperwork shouldn't invalidate the sanctions they placed or render violations of them unenforceable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Manual logging is a pain, it's easily forgotten / error-prone, and it shouldn't be necessary. I'd rather see the manual log pages removed, and replaced with categories. Make it mandatory to place ((Ct/talk notice)) on the talk page of articles with active actions, and add categories to that template. Same thing with ((CT sanction)) template (along with language that the template must not be deleted from the user's talk page until the restrictions have been lifted). It's 2022, we shouldn't need to manually maintain a log page. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

Reducing and simplifying the language

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Administrators' role and expectations

Rationale

Part of an effort to make the language easier to understand for all editors while not losing nuance.

Administrator's role (feedback)[edit]

• That is pretty much how it works in practice already, so I don't see a problem with the wording. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal summary

Incorporates AE scope into ArbCom procedure. Allows community to use AE noticeboard for its own version of contentious topics by consensus.

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Noticeboard_scope or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Motion

Rationale

The community expressed that the AE noticeboard works well, and has repeatedly asked us to adopt ArbCom DS in place of community DS ("GS"). This would allow the community to use the AE noticeboard if desired.

AE noticeboard (feedback)[edit]

• This seems reasonable --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good to me. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• That's fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This will help. El_C 22:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes please. Single appeal venue. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @GeneralNotability: The draft still allows appeals at either AE or AN. GoldenRing (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well sure, they can't demand the community do anything, but I am hopeful that the community can be persuaded to approve a venue change. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• AE is cleaner than AN because people are restricted to their own sections and can't bludgeon and bog down the process with endless threaded responses. Makes sense to me. ~Awilley (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• While I've no objection to the community being able to use AE for GS, I would be extremely opposed to having to use AE for GS appeals. Additionally, threaded responses can significantly aid discussion, especially where individuals are responding to and fro - something that can be necessary and is very hard to understand when scattered to multiple sections Nosebagbear (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not clear @Nosebagbear. Do you have an objection to what's proposed or does it satisfy the conditions you lay out? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49 - I was more responding on comments made by other editors above. The actual proposal, as written, is fine - I think it's a good addition. The remainder of my comments, as indicated, are in response to the comments from GN downwards. However, obviously that discussion is for the community at a later point. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

• Create two editnotices: one for no page restrictions, one with page restrictions
• Use bullet points for page restrictions rather than jamming everything inline (de facto current practice, but official template disallows this)
• Plan to create ArbCom-maintained templates for complicated cases, instead of leaving it to the community to hack together (e.g. w:en:Template:Editnotice GMO 1RR, w:en:Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice

Prototype

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Templates#Editnotices and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Templates#Talk_page_notice

Editnotices and talk page notices (feedback)[edit]

• Nice. I've found the current template system for editnotices confusing and having custom templates for complicated CTs will help. Having two templates also sounds a good plan. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The more words an edit notice has, the less likely people are to read it. The edit notice "with page restrictions" is particularly bad. Honestly I'd cut out everything after "Furthermore".
  On the edit notice with no page restrictions, I'd look for ways to make it look less like the edit notice with page restrictions (so it doesn't desensitize editors to edit notices altogether, and so the one with restrictions will jump out at them). Maybe use an "i" instead of a "!" graphic and use smaller text. ~Awilley (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Due to banner blindness concerns, I feel that the use of an editnotice on pages without page-specific restrictions should be discouraged. Last year when ProcrastinatingReader was updating the templates used for community-authorized discretionary sanctions, he found there were no editnotices deployed for pages related to the arbitration committee-authorized discretionary sanction topics at that time unless there were also page-specific restrictions imposed. (Covid-19 was, back then, the only topic area where editnotices were used on pages without restrictions; it was subsequently shifted from community-authorized discretionary sanctions to arbitration committee-authorized discretionary sanctions.) Editors are expected to follow all the recommended behaviours listed in the draft editnotice when editing any page, not just ones related to contentious topics. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

WP:AE is a venue with limited capacity, since each case before it takes significant time and energy. Accordingly, non-controversial actions like regular page protections, vandalism, run-of-the mill disruption should be dealt with via regular processes.

Proposed language

Before imposing a special enforcement action, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Administrators'_role_and_expectations

AE is limited (feedback)[edit]

• Yes please. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No. If you are capping indvidual actions at 1 year, more things are going to need to go through AE. This is mostly a CYA move to deflect from the resonable outcome to your policy changes --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 — agreed (again). El_C 19:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The way I read this statement is not that the administrator should consider applying the special enforcement action as an individual admin before going to AE, but that they should consider using a regular administrative action (which is not bound by the year limit as it's not an AE action). Maybe I'm misunderstanding what regular means here, but to me that is saying not using CT / DS authorisations. With regards to the cap at a year in length for individual actions, I'm not yet sure. If there is misunderstanding perhaps the wording could be better, but that would need arbs to weigh in on what the intended meaning is. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the correct interpretation. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Guerillero, I'd consider this a similar admonishment to Tamzin's essay User:Tamzin/SPI is expensive - basically, if the disruption is obvious and can be handled with normal admin tools, just do that instead of going through the AE process to save everyone time and energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralNotability (talk • contribs)

  I agree with GN and Barkeep here. While AE is a wonderous process and very helpful, it is resource intensive. I often see cases at AE that I personally would have just blocked as a regular admin action. And sometimes that is even the outcome of AE threads: an admin just makes a regular action block. In recognizing that we are short on AE admins, the intent here is to conserve that valuable resource of AE admins, and of community time in general, by speeding up obvious blocks. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is already the case, I don't get why the language is necessary. I think every admin knows that if a standard admin action is most appropriate, that is the action you should take. As someone who works AE regular, I can say there really isn't a major problem with any aspect of this, as it is. Not sure what this fixes. Both AE sanctions and regular sanctions are given out at AE, and problems that don't belong there are handled quickly and aren't overloading the system. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From my point of view this writing down of the generally understood practice is useful in this case as it gives something to point towards if questions are asked. While I don't want more content in the procedure, this IMO is more of a benefit than a negative to be stated. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't this make AE blocks essentially impossible? The point of an AE block instead of an ordinary block is that it can't be undone by another admin. But with this wording, an admin could only impose an AE block if they thought there was a substantial risk that another admin will undo the block - a failure of AGF. For preventing disruption in AE topics, an AE block should be first choice, not last. GoldenRing (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that the point of an AE block is that it can't be undone. If that is why people seek AE blocks, then maybe we need to make a more fundamental change. Instead, I see AE as being able to cut through the baloney and block obvious malcontents that might survive at AN. AE's superpower is that realizes editors misbehaving in contentious topic areas are probably trolls or irredeemable POV pushers, and deals with them appropriately. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a helpful proposal. It will create another issue to wikilawyer over. We'll see appeals like "the admin could have placed a normal block instead", missing the point that the purpose of DS blocks is that they are more difficult to undo. Sandstein 06:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't think this particularly helps, if someone is reported to AE who should obviously be blocked as a normal admin action then it normally doesn't last long or take up much time. Also these proposals mean that several common actions which could formerly be done by individual admins now require consensus at AE, which is going to increase AE workload. Hut 8.5 07:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

• Change current w:en:Template:AE sanction to be for contentious topics only, which simplifies language (this template is never used for non-DS currently)
• Change "sanction" to "restriction"

Prototype

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Templates#Notice_of_restriction

Notice of restriction (feedback)[edit]

Proposal summary

The motion does three main things:

1. Enacts the new procedure (and invites review after one year)
2. Enacts procedural changes that would have been part of the new procedure, except they also affect some non-CT AE processes
   • Authorizes arbs and clerks, after consulting ArbCom, to update and maintain AE templates and docs including CT (e.g. alert templates, editnotices, case-specific pages)
   • Formally enacts the AE noticeboard scope referenced above
   • Formally enacts the AE logging changes referenced above
3. Changes to DS remedies:
   • Redesignates all outstanding DS as CTs (and also removes old cruft, e.g. “pages” vs “articles”, etc.) (this is a technical change necessary for the new CT procedure)

Proposal text

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Motion

Motion (feedback)[edit]

Is there anything that the Committee has missed? Feel free to propose them below. Please copy the sample formatting below, inserting your own proposal. The Committee reserves the right to clerk your entry.

Sample proposal by User:Example[edit]

Proposal

Puppies are cute. I propose that ArbCom gives us all a puppy.

Proposed language

The Arbitration Committee shall provide each editor a puppy.

Sample proposal (feedback)[edit]

Proposal by Sandstein: Allow AE delegation back to ArbCom in difficult cases[edit]

Proposal

From my (perhaps outdated) experience as an admin formerly active in AE, almost all AE actions are uncontroversial because they are taken against people who are clearly not here to build a neutral encyclopedia, such as obvious POV-pushers. There are, however, cases in which valid complaints are made against the WP:UNBLOCKABLES - administrators or veteran editors with a large network of friends, on- or offwiki. In such cases, in my experience, an attempt by a single administrator to sanction them - even though theoretically authorized by the Committee - will invariable result in a huge shitstorm on various community fora. And if these cases end up back before the Committee, on appeal or otherwise, my experience is that the Committee will often attempt to evade having to take a decision, leaving the enforcing admin to take the brunt of the harassment by the sanctioned editor's friends.

This is inappropriate. It is the Committee's job to resolve intractable and divisive disputes, and to take the heat for it, not that of individual administrators with limited legitimacy and authority. Like other parts of the dispute resolution system, AE/DS are good at dealing with routine cases, but bad at taking the hard decisions for which the authority of these procedures would actually be needed.

I therefore propose to authorize admins to request that the Committee, or individual arbitrators authorized by the Committee, examine and act on such cases. The proposal applies to all of AE, not only DS, because enforcement actions in individual cases present the same difficulties. Sandstein 07:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed language

An uninvolved administrator at WP:AE may, instead of acting on an arbitration enforcement request, ask the Arbitration Committee to examine the request, if the administrator believes that the request may have merit but that acting on it would generate disproportionate controversy or disruption. The Committee, or the arbitrator(s) to whom this function may have been delegated by the Committee, shall take a binding decision about whether and how to act on the request.

Proposal by Sandstein (feedback)[edit]

• We did something similar to this concept with EE after the case request around New Years. I am very receptive to the idea of a consensus of admin referring something to the Committee to be handled as a formal outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be amazing. Sometimes the issue at hand is too complex for AE and the committee should take a look at it -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: I would like to bring your attention to the proposed language which suggests a consensus is not needed to request this but that a single individual uninvolved administrator can make this request. I imagine (can't speak for Sandstein here) that this is because getting a consensus to take any action in regards to an Unblockable is generally difficult even at AE. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that was the idea. The editors at issue here will often have one or two admins defending them - enough to prevent consensus if AE is not well attended. Sandstein 06:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see too much of this, but I like the idea, even if it isn't used very often. I would only add that the justification might best be "for any reason" rather than "acting on it would generate disproportionate controversy or disruption." Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree this ought to be an option. Hut 8.5 07:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not see why this is needed. Any individual admin (and any participant) can initiate an arbitration case at any time. There is no need in any special authorization. If this is something previously considered and unresolved at WP:AE (or on other noticeboards), this is always taken into account by Arbcom. If the request is supported by several admins, nothing prevents them from commenting in the arbitration request, exactly as they did in the past. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is why I intentionally changed what Sandstein was suggesting (individual admin outcome). I think if a group of AE admins say to ArbCom "we need your help" ArbCom should take that seriously. By formalizing this into the procedures it makes clear that ArbCom will be receptive when it happens. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, good idea. But "a consensus of admins [on AE] referring something to the Committee" would be very unusual. Let's see if that will ever happen. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the option of a consensus finding at AE of "referred to ArbCom". firefly ( t · c ) 16:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is a good idea. I don't see the scenario Sandstein describes as being the common use of it, though. Rather, there are times when a case brought to AE has become such a mess that it is essentially impossible for individual admins to untangle it and come to a reasonable conclusion as to what actions are needed. In those cases, the full deliberative process of an ArbCom case is much more likely to come to a useful conclusion as to what steps are needed. I think an "Escalate to ArbCom" resolution being possible by AE consensus, while uncommon, would indeed be the best choice for some particularly intractable or complex cases. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• One thing to be cautious about is that it's human nature to want to pass on responsibility to someone else to deal with difficult issues. There's already a tendency for participants in a contentious dispute to throw up their hands and say this needs an arbitration case to resolve. Given that there are vocal members of the community who get irritated when the arbitration committee opens a case that they think the community could have resolved, I think it's important to emphasize that the community should be trying to resolve issues itself as much as possible. isaacl (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If something is at Arbitration Enforcement, we're already beyond the community resolving the issue itself. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Arbitration enforcement relies on administrators to offload the committee from evaluating every potential breach. isaacl (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I like this idea. It's an option, and it doesn't obligate AE admins to use it, nor obligate ArbCom to accept the referral. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am somewhat concerned if this would be Arbcom using the DS rules. I'd be more in favour of it was in the type of "AE can close to ARBCOM as a formal close", and a clerk will open it as an arbcom case request - that is, use the normal arbcom rules (including closing by motion), but with a much greater likelihood of acceptance and not needing a regular edit to do the nuisance of opening a case themselves. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand if this would be Arbcom using the DS rules. If the people has delegated decision making to think it should be kicked back up to the committee elected to deal with these things that is normal rules. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that this is a good idea but believe that individual admins should be able to refer matters per Sandstein's reasoning. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by Atsme[edit]

Solving the problems[edit]

Looking at the root cause and why the fruits of our labor are consistently overcome by weeds, we have to look deep to find the root rot. A bit dramatic, yes, but it gets the point across. The root of the problem is differing opinions in highly contentious topic areas. We cannot change those editors who are epistemologically different, and we certainly should not punish them for being different, or for having different opinions, or for sharing for their thoughts. So how do we keep the peace, and fix the problem, which is what ArbCom is all about; i.e., finding resolution? And 9 times out of 10, the issue is NPOV which bleeds over to RS, because biased editors disapprove of sources that do not align with their bias; therefore, all kinds of excuses and criticisms are made, which apply to all sides but bias blinds us into believing that our side can do no wrong. The focus then becomes getting rid of the sources, arguing about the reliability of those we don't agree with, and whoosh! NPOV goes to hell in a hand basket. That is the heart of root rot. We are supposed to include all significant views, regardless of our biases, or what we believe to be right, or correct. It's not the article's fault, it is decorum's fault and the lack of keeping discussions civil. They can be long discussions - but they should not be uncivil...and the first uncivil remark should result in the first warning by the overseeing admin. I'm not talking about innocuous comments and friendly banter, I'm talking about the "you are" remarks like "you are delusional", "the sources you pick", etc. Make "you" a restricted word.^[stretch]

• Title = Restricted topics (Tryptofish made that name suggestion above)

Definitions (a mix of suggested and modified) The committee is the Arbitration Committee. RTN ("restricted topic noticeboard") is the venue for requesting, applying, discussing and appealing most enforcement requests. AN ("administrators' noticeboard") is the alternative venue for appeals. ARCA ("Requests for Amendment") is the venue for appealing to the committee.

• An alert is the formal alert notice that informs editors that an area of conflict is covered by discretionary sanctions. (No need for alerts - the notice will be in the article edit view, and on the article TP. Editors can also advise newbies of the restriction. Perhaps a topicon can be created for those articles under RT.)  Added – quick suggestion: we could include a brief notice in Template:Welcome for all new editors advising them to simply be aware of restricted topics because they require strict adherence to decorum and may be restricted to 1RR-consensus required, and that those topics are designated by notice in the top banner on the article TP as well as in the article's edit view. Atsme 💬 📧 13:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)))[reply]
• An appeal includes any request for the reconsideration, reduction, or removal of a sanction restriction.
• A restricted topic area includes contentious or controversial topics or groups of topics in which an administrator may apply restrictions and tighter scrutiny for the benefit of reaching consensus, and by providing assurances that the discussions will be collegial without having to take action.
• An editor is anyone and everyone who may edit and has edited the encyclopedia.
• The administrator who places restrictions on an article is the overseer, but any administrator can enforce the terms of the restriction.
• A restriction includes the remedies placed by the overseeing administrator as authorised by this procedure.

• Authorisation - admins have the authority to identify and tag an article and its TP as a RT that is subject to rigorous behavioral remedies and tighter scrutiny involving WP:NPA, Wikipedia:Edit warring, WP:BLP, and WP's 3 core content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Admins are authorised to act within the purview of authority granted to them by ArbCom and the community to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Administrators. These include the ability to block and unblock user accounts, IP addresses, and IP ranges from editing, edit fully protected pages, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools. Admins must never use their tools or influence to gain an advantage, push their POV in a dispute in which they were involved, and must not misuse their authority in a contentious topic area subject to RT if they have exhibited a bias and/or prejudice against a particular POV, past or present, in the topic area, on their UTP, or on the UTP of an editor with whom they are prejudiced against (see WP:POV creep). They are required to exercise their authority from a NPOV without prejudice to any political or religious persuasion.

Guidance for editors[edit]

Expectations

Restricted topics are not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but restrictions may be imposed if an editor severely disrupts discussion. Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Any editor whose edits do not meet these requirements may wish to restrict their editing to other topics in order to avoid the possibility of an enforcement remedy.

Decorum[edit]

Certain pages (typically, RTE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of restrictive topic enforcement cases. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure. they are not expected to trade These noticeboards are zero tolerance areas; therefore, insults, character assassinations, casting aspersions, and various other personal attacks will quickly be dealt with by an admin action. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted; and may remove statements, or restrict or block editors, as necessary to address inappropriate conduct.

Eliminate Awareness/Alert section[edit]

Role of administrators[edit]

The enforcing overseeing administrator’s objective should be to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles. To this end, administrators are expected to use their experience and good judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers, to be self-conscious about the potential for WP:POV creep, and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum.

Administrators must not

impose a restriction when involved; modify a restriction out of process; repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions; repeatedly fail to log their RT actions or page restrictions; or repeatedly issue disproportionate RT actions or issue a grossly disproportionate restriction.

• Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be subject to any remedy ArbCom considers appropriate, including desysopping. Administrative actions may be peer-reviewed using the regular appeal processes.

• To act in RT enforcement, an administrator must at all relevant times have their access to the tools enabled. Former administrators – that is, editors who have temporarily or permanently relinquished the tools or have been desysopped – may neither act as administrators in arbitration enforcement nor reverse their own previous administrative actions.

Eliminate this section as it is already in Wikipedia:Administrators[edit]

IOW, there is nothing special about an admin overseeing an RT area. They act as admins, with the two exceptions:

1. Placing a restriction on the page - such as 1RR – consensus required.
2. Tighter scrutiny relative to Decorum at these articles.

Eliminate all the remaining re: appeals, yada yada[edit]

1. Another admin can overturn an overseer's decision
2. An editor who is subject to an overseer's action should be able to appeal as with any other block or t-ban appeal - and editors should not have to grovel or be humiliated, or be subjected to disrespect and mistreatment.

• What I have presented above, is pretty much it in a nutshell. I did not do a final proofread because I'm blind to it now, but probably needs some CE. It all should flow with the same thought in mind as you move down the page, which is basically to treat editors like they are human beings. If our admins are going to enforce anything, strictly enforce BLP and NPOV. That will get rid of your root rot. Of course, there will always be weeds, but they won't kill your fruit tree. Atsme 💬 📧 20:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The current discretionary sanctions system places limits on what can be done via discretionary sanctions because the community remains responsible for policy, and so the committee put constraints so discretionary sanctions can't be placed indefinitely. If admins are going to be given broader authority, it should be done by the community. It's not within the purview of the arbitration committee to enact a policy change at this level. The community should agree upon a framework for what I called red-flag topics, and it can decide if and how it wants to delegate some responsibility to the arbitration committee to designate topics. isaacl (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While I agree Atsme's proposal ventures into territory that the community should be deciding - if I understand it correctly - I think the proposal still offers a coherent alternative system if instead of giving admin discretion about what to designate an "RT" the committee still designates them. It instead suggests a limiting of admin power to restrictions at the article level - rather than editor level - with editor sanctioning happening through more traditional process, rather than unilateral admin action. It also makes enforcement a normal admin action - where an admin can reverse another's action but must justify doing so rather than with DS where reversing without consensus leads to desysop. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the process for enacting and enforcing sanctions on a per article basis becomes a normal admin action, then I think it should be enacted as regular policy by the community, and thus under its control for amendment as opposed to arbitration policy. I agree that this policy can include a role for the arbitration committee to designate applicable areas (presumably alongside the community doing so by consensus), which can replace the current discretionary sanctions system. isaacl (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's better to keep RT issues away from ANI. The venues for discussion need to be RTN or ARCA. ArbCom has already designated contentious topic areas, (it may even include the whole pedia) and the differences include the name change from sanctions to restrictions, removal of the alert headaches, and modifying a few admin actions relative to enforcement as overseers of decorum at articles in those designated topic areas. We do not want the same few admins policing the same few topic areas because it causes admins to develop preconceived notions, especially about editors with whom they disagree <– and I can say that based on personal experiences, and so can a few others. I believe my proposal also helps eliminate the "repulsion" some admins have toward working in contentious topics. An admin knows if it's AP2, Accupuncture, Antisemitism, etc. and should be able to tag an article when/if the behavior has become disruptive to the point that it warrants a RT label. Even something as simple as PP will work to allow time for things to cool off. It is really not a big deal. If we will all just behave like well-mannered, educated editors in a collegial setting we would not need RT. Such a simple admin task should not require the community to enact anything. This is strictly between ArbCom and admins in contentious topic areas. ✋🏻 Simple. Atsme 💬 📧 17:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that the arbitration committee has the ability to override the blocking policy or community practice for page-level restrictions as described at Wikipedia:General sanctions. I'm not commenting on the value of your proposal; I just believe the community should decide on enacting it, as it is expanding the types of indefinite restrictions that can be placed by admins. The community can specify whatever venues it determines are appropriate in its policy. You're preaching to the choir regarding editor behaviour: if we had content dispute resolution processes where poor behaviour weren't a successful strategy, then editors would have incentive to stop acting poorly. isaacl (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If I understand correctly, this essentially works on a technicality: ArbCom declares the *entire* Encyclopedia as subject to DS, but with a spin, and gives admins great discretion as to what is restricted. If my interpretation is correct, then I'm inclined to agree with Isaacl here. I just don't think that this particular proposal is ArbCom territory. It would essentially divest ArbCom of one of its chief powers, while simultaneously transferring considerable power to admins. That's like the Supreme Court handing its power to the President. Would it make things more efficient? Sure. Is that a good move? I don't think so. We have to balance efficiency with accuracy. If the community really desires this, it has the full power to implement this idea and to reform the foundations of ArbCom. But I don't think ArbCom itself can do that. If we do have that power, then perhaps we have too much power, and should not use it that way. And on a more practical level, why would ArbCom ever vote to nullify its most used ability? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poopers. We are not on the same page. I'm not quite sure what Isaac is saying because when I read his response, it does not align with what I'm thinking or have stated, much less what is in ArbCom's and admins current purview. It feels like his approach is far more complicated than the reality of what I've proposed. IOW, admins have those basic tools without the need for RT. Could it be that the process is so simple it has become too difficult to explain? I'm at a loss here. Atsme 💬 📧 23:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm saying you should propose your proposal as an RfC for the community to approve, resulting in modifying the blocking policy, the general sanctions guidance, and other relevant guidance, and thus obsoleting the discretionary sanctions framework. It exists only because admins don't ordinarily have the ability to unilaterally impose things like page-level restrictions. The community doesn't need the arbitration committee to authorize giving administrators more sanction options. The community should cut out the intermediary and do it itself. isaacl (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Atsme I've chatted some with Barkeep and I think I have a better view on what you are proposing, assuming that ArbCom sets the RT areas, and admins merely patrol them (previously I read your writing as ArbCom devolving its authority). As I get it: you are making restrictions page focused rather than editor focused, and makes overturning actions easier. Not as big of a change as I had thought originally. I guess I'm not seeing the benefit of making restrictions page based, as that requires more work on the part of more editors to check page restrictions. In terms of making actions easier to overturn, I think we've tried to do some work on that but we'll take that feedback going into our revisions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• CaptainEek, your response is very encouraging. I absolutely positively want ArbCom to maintain its authority and you are correct that my concern is ArbCom delegating it's authority to admins that can act on sole discretion with a unilateral action that cannot be overturned, and that will require nothing short of a miracle to appeal. That is where I strongly believe WP:POV creep and prejudice rears its ugly head, inadvertently or otherwise. What I've proposed will eliminate that factor, or at least reduce it substantially. Attention-getting banners in an article's edit view can be made to be quite visible and will provide much better returns than warnings on an editor's UTP. Why? Because it clearly applies to everyone so that new and old editors alike do not feel singled-out or targeted by their opposition. Placing edit sanction warnings on a UTP is a terrible approach, and trying to get uninvolved editors to do that placement creates a different set of issues, none of which points to resolution. Keeping decorum on the article TP is paramount, and will resolve 99% of our issues. Let the discussion happen so a consensus can be reached. It is when one side runs out of valid arguments that the problems begin, and we see attempts to get rid of those editors with strong opposing views. We all know that to be a fact. There is already a remedy for edit warring, and no reason that ArbCom cannot place restrictions for 1RR, or simply allow admins to use PP which they are already authorized to do. Any admin can handle actions related to TP Decorum, and should not have anything to do with a page restriction. It's a behavior problem, and one of the primary reasons we have admins. In summary, I want to say that I am impressed with all the work arbcom has invested in this issue, and that I wish you, Barkeep, L235, and the other arbs the best of luck, and a successful conclusion to what you all have worked so hard to finally get right. Atsme 💬 📧 21:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by AGK[edit]

This consultation has sought to resolve a grievance – that discretionary sanctions is mired in bureaucracy and the regulations around it are dense, discouraging editors from editing and admins from enforcing.

I have suggested that the present direction of the draft does not cure the problem. It's likely to lead next decade to another consultation.

The real problem is that administrative discretion lies at the heart of discretionary sanctions. Yet over the years, a massive amount of regulation has sprung up to constrain discretion. The regulation is not having the desired effect (improving administrative decision-making) and has taken on a life of its own (regulation of the regulation).

I have drafted a replacement remedy, using the example of WP:ARBAB, at User:AGK/Administrative authorisation#Administrators authorised. The text is also reproduced here:

That's it. You don't need any other operative provisions. Just provision for administrator discretion and a few limiting provisions.

It is proposed that each of the existing remedies to authorise standard DS would be replaced with the above text. There would only be these remedies, made up of the above paragraphs: it is proposed to deprecate the 'standard discretionary sanctions' instrument. By implementing in this way, each case remedy stands on its own. That avoids the problem we had with DS, which acquired its own 'brand' and therefore gave people more to comprehend. Many existing pieces of infrastructure (eg WP:AC/DS, Template:Ds/alert) can then also be deprecated.

I submit this proposal for your consideration and comment. AGK (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment – entitlement to place sanctions: The AE group of administrators is already quite a narrow one, but that is not why this provision is envisaged. Instead, the provision is a form of quality control. The danger with AE is that it gives extreme power to Javertesque admins whose effect is damaging, but not so damaging that their admin status can be removed entirely. AGK (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Some interesting ideas here. But, as shown with only 3 new functionary candidates, I worry we simply don't have enough admins in the admin corp who would be willing to get approved and that the necessary process of approval would mean some who might try AE work decide not to. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The provision could always be made 'opt-in': every administrator is allowed to participate, but problematic ones can be asked to stay away for a period of time. That said, I was envisaging an application process that is simpler than the one for functionaries. No community feedback, no questionnaires and probably a much shorter decision-making time. AGK (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes that's what I took from the proposal. I'm suggesting any application process may be enough to deter people and I personally have a real worry about admin (and editor) capacity. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's more than a fair point. Your point is a vital one, because the AE noticeboard will see more traffic if the doctrine of 'alert' is killed off. 'Admin approval' is a balancing provision: you give admins discretion and then you balance it. With any constitutional document, the balancing provisions can be so heavy as to topple the system, such as by being too cumbersome. I may also be showing too little faith in our admins: perhaps they don't need approving. The proposal survives if admin approval is removed, or turned into an 'admin ejection' provision. AGK (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment – review/appeal distinction: The review mechanism is designed to be a low-touch means of ensuring that a sanction is proportionate. Full reasoning is not required because the bar for review, unlike appeal, is not 'should you have done this?' but 'what sanction would I have applied?'. AGK (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Similar to Atsme's proposal, if administrators are being given authority to enact indefinite restrictions that currently are within the purview of the community, then the community should alter its policies, bringing the framework under its direct control. It can choose to specify that appeals must be made to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or the arbitration committee. isaacl (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the discretion is thought to be too broad, then sanctions can be time-limited, eg a maximum duration of 1 year. It is worth remembering: a sanctions system gets authorised because community-based measures have not worked. The system needs to be effective. The community tends not to have resources enough to regulate highly-problematic areas. Remanding these areas to the community is unlikely to work. And you seem to recommend it for democratic reasons: only the community should own the sanctions system. But the community elects ArbCom. Also, there is a necessary trade-off between direct democracy and practicableness. AGK (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We can look at extended-confirmed protection as an example of the community taking a restriction originally imposed by the arbitration committee and making it a normal part of policy. Including the typical sanctions currently imposed under discretionary sanctions as part of regular policy will make more tools available for community-based measures so they can work better, thus avoiding arbitration cases. The main operational difference with the current setup is that the guardrails in place that treat discretionary sanctions as something special, counter to regular practice, can go away. No need for special alerts: the blocking policy and guidance on general sanctions (which cover page-level restrictions) can cover it as normal practice. No need for rules on sunsetting sanctions and requiring renewal simply because the community hasn't authorized admins to issue indefinite restrictions: by taking over the policy, it will have given admins that power (if it chooses to, of course; it could also choose to keep some sunsetting provisions). From a policy perspective, the difference would be that the community can modify the system itself. isaacl (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Without having reviewed the proposal in detail, I generally support a simplification of the entire process in this vein. Sandstein 08:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A simplification would be good. I think you can describe it all in 4-5 paragraphs.

  The Phase II draft is a bit long. Some of it doesn't really solve problems being faced, e.g. I'm not aware there were concerns with crazy page-level protections being imposed unilaterally, so I don't see the point of the new "standard set" of page restrictions process. I don't think awareness/alerting was fixed in this draft either. The draft is more readable than the current system, but substantially there are issues. The templates are less convoluted, sure, but remain way too long. I'm biased because I created it, but I think Template:Gs/editnotice is substantially better than these - it's shorter and conveys everything you need to know. Nobody wants to read paragraphs of regulations to make an edit, so they won't. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I like standard types of sanctions being defined, as I think this is a step towards integrating them into regular policy and guidance, which then makes the need for special awareness and alerts unnecessary. isaacl (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK I'm not quite sure I can envision how 4C would actually work. Presumably one scenario would be:

Foo topic banned from (DS TOPIC), broadly construed by Barkeep49

Reviewing admin 1: Endorse sanction

Reviewing admin 2: Endorse sanction

Reviewing admin 3: Is a little harsher than I'd like but I still Endorse sanction

Easy. But how does it work if the 3 reviewing admins don't agree - but we also don't know why because they don't have to give any reasoning? Is it a straight vote, so if 2 admins already do X there's no need for a third? Who actually implements what the 3 decide (or in the case of mixed opinions decides what they've decided)? Can you help me better understand how you think it would actually work at AE? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this to be referring to 4B, which is the reviews clause. The situation envisaged is where an administrator has been too harsh. The opposite (admin leniency) rarely comes up. Reviewing administrators are now being encouraged to substitute their own judgment, not to give detailed reasoning or arrive at a consensus. Admin 3 does not have to equivocate about what they would have done, in the way your scenario imagines. They just say, "This should be a page-ban. Overturn topic-ban". If both others agree, then the new sanction is substituted. Review is not a fast-track appeal, but a second crack at the whip for sanctioned users. AGK (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is about 4B andtThanks for that correction AGK. So we'd have instead:

Foo topic banned from (DS TOPIC), broadly construed by Barkeep49

Reviewing admin 1: Topic ban Foo

Reviewing admin 2: Topic ban Foo

Reviewing admin 3: Warn Foo

So that leaves my other questions. Why would reviewing admin 3 bother if 1&2 both came to the same conclusion? Especially because it explicitly notes that no justification need be given so it's not like there's a basis for discussion. Who decides how to close the review; Admin 4? And now that I understand better what's proposed, why would I bother doing any sanction if I know that the real decision is going to be made by 3 other people? Isn't the logical outcome of your system just for all sanctions to be decided by 3 admins and the one who'd previously done the sanctioning to just be Admin 1? By saying that the initial decision gets zero deference it seems to me that we're massively reducing admin authority which is directly opposite of what your stated goals were - more authority in exchange for more supervision. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presume for now that the threshold to substitute is 3/3 of the reviewing admins, although 2/3 may be more practicable and proportionate. There is going to be no 'closure' of the review. This isn't a consensus discussion; as a re-assessment, it is closer to a straight vote. Taking your scenario, the sanction is topic ban for 1 year and the reviewers vote, 'Topic ban, 1 year', 'Topic ban, 1 year' and 'Warn'. The voting threshold to substitute a warning has not there been reached, so the original sanction stands.

Modifying your scenario, the sanction was block for 1 year and the reviewers vote, 'Topic ban, 1 year', 'Affirm block' and 'Warn'. There the threshold of 3/3 is not met.

Modifying it again, the reviewers have voted 'Topic ban, 6 months', 'Topic ban, 6 months' and 'Warn'. The threshold is met: all 3 reviewing administrators think that a lesser sanction is needed and the 6-month topic ban is substituted.

If three administrative colleagues would have imposed a lighter sanction than you, then it's clear that you are a hanging judge, of the sort that we've always had a bit of a problem discouraging from participation in Administrator Enforcement. You're right that that kind of admin might be discouraged from participating, or they might participate but consciously modulate their behaviour. Other admins, however, know that if they select a sanction that's proportionate to the problem, then the reviewing threshold will not be met, should a review be brought, and their original sanction will stand. The analogous situation here, I think, is sentencing in the criminal courts. Judges always have their eye on the appeal court, knowing that if they impose a sentence that's too lenient or too heavy, then the accused is likely to take an appeal of sentence. Sentences that most other judges would impose are likely not to be disturbed on appeal. Sentences that stray too far from expectation will risk being substituted. Appeal judges have no trouble in leaving good sentences undisturbed but changing bad ones, and in agreeing among themselves whether to substitute. At the same time, first instance judges do not, I think, feel like their discretion is fettered. (This analogy is not meant at all to imply that admins are 'sentencing' editors of Wikipedia, and ideally the motivation in sanctioning is different to that in criminal justice.)

Might it be good to workshop some more scenarios, perhaps on a different page? AGK (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC) Errors corrected: AGK (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been thinking about assignment of the pseudoperm. I think to have a chance it would automatically be held by any sitting or former arb (who remains an admin) and by any sitting CU or OS. I think in terms of granting it might work better if it worked like a normal perm in that it could be granted by anyone who holds it and could also be removed that way - with perhaps some opportunity to appeal that decision to ArbCom as a whole. But actually putting that into procedures - or even just putting what is already suggested here with arbcom doing all the assigning - is going to create a boatload of procedures in and of itself. I worry in general that when we actually do the things to make this proposal feasible (see also question above) it'll suddenly be much longer and thus lose the virtue its supporters like. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grandfathering in a bunch of people would be a sensible thing to do at the start. Then… Let's not complicate things. You could then add the permission to WP:RFPERM, allowing only sitting arbitrators to handle requests, and deciding requests perhaps on a net-4 basis. Borderline cases could be discussed on your mailing list. A procedure would be adopted for removals, which one hopes would be needed infrequently. If you don't like the idea of using the community permissions page, then just create a new section at the bottom of WP:A/R. It's a radical workflow change, but so were Discretionary Sanctions when first adopted… AGK (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say that the psuedopermission is the least essential protection within this draft, although I do think that it's an important one. Separating AE-admins and regular-admins is analogous to the separation of the interface-admin and sysop permissions. Not every admin is suited to the work, in my experience. AGK (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AGK nailed it in that last paragraph. Also to consider...depending on one's health and age, 1 year could be a lifetime. We have excellent editors who are in their golden years, and sadly, we also have editors who are here on borrowed time but still do incredible work. What kind of behavior would warrant an entire year? Imposing a 1 yr. t-ban should be a decision made with no room for doubt or question, not unlike how admins approach a CSD. For example, how many tl;dr comments arguing inclusion or deletion in an RfC are considered too many & deserving of a t-ban, when it is a single editor arguing valid reasons backed by RS, but who is being wrongly accused of stonewalling and disruption? We have far too many ambiguous PAGs that fall prey to individual perspectives, keeping in mind that we are dealing with volunteers from different countries, of different religious & political persuasions, and completely different cultures. I live on a tiny island in the Dutch Caribbean where the views are quite different from say the UK & US. Sole discretion is a crap shoot because of those differences, and the boldness of anonymity. Will ArbCom vet the admins who will work in these highly contentious topic areas if they intend to continue imposing harsh measures, because we all know for a fact that it doesn't completely eliminate disruption; rather, it eliminates good editors who feel slighted. Is it really possible that an editor can be so incredibly disruptive in only one topic area but be the ideal editor in all other topic areas? I think not – but it is used as an excuse to rid the topic area of opposition. I'm of the mind that a person is who they are regardless of where they are, and that preventing them from participating in a particular topic area because the opposition wants them gone is unconscionable and a threat to reaching consensus and maintaining NPOV. As for "disruption" (depending on one's perception of disruption), I will admit that when all editors are of like mind (politically, religiously, etc.) there is less chance for disruption. The only thing I want homogenized is a glass of milk, not our community. There is no question that this is a tough call but we elected the right team for the job. Good luck, arbs!! Atsme 💬 📧 01:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AGK proposal - No doubt the details can be refined or even further simplified. But AGK's proposal is addressing the problems that actually do exist - which is no small accomplishment. I only have a few comments. There are many times when an editor is rather obviously disrupting talk page collaboration by incivility, bludgeon, NOTGETTINGIT etc. There has been a small and dwindling number of Admins who seem to be savvy judges of behavior and the content editing process who have patroled contentious pages and given out discretionary sanctions to the offending editors without necessetating the burdensome AE process. As I understand AGK's proposal, it would encourage that kind of enforcement while at the same time providing safeguards with easy review and appeal. There could be a page similar to Close or Page Protection requests on which editors could request an uninvolved Admin keep an eye on a page, but it would be best if more Admins were autonomously patroling the contentious pages.

Over the past couple of years the AE board has degenerated into an ANI-wannabe thicket that's become so impenetrable that participation is populated by largely by highly motivated editors who have either an axe to grind or too much time on their hands. Neither category is likely to be particularly helpful to the Admin review of the case. If such a board is to be effective, the comments of non-Admin participants (except for the complainant and target) should be limited to diffs only with one descriptive sentence for each. Ranting and vendettas can continue to go elsewhere. I also agree with AGK's observation that some Admins are more likely to get things right in the difficult environment of these enforcement issues. All Admins should be encouraged to volunteer for this responsibility, and a well-functioning review/appeal process would be a safeguard against any errors with discretionary enforcement. For balance, the review and appeal functions should only be done by select what AGK calls AE-Admins -- selected by a process yet to be determined. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]