Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) |
→Sanction duration (feedback): On the disconnect between ARBCOM and AE admins |
||
Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
*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. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 21:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
*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. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 21:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
*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. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 22:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
*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. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 22:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
::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. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 22:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==Individual restrictions: when used== |
==Individual restrictions: when used== |
Revision as of 22:33, 3 September 2022
Status as of 17:16 (UTC), Wednesday, 8 May 2024 (
)
- The final decision has been posted and announced.
- The initial implementation period has concluded and the updated procedure has come into effect.
- Any editors interested in the ongoing implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page.
- To be notified about updates, subscribe to the update list.
The revision process will be conducted in four phases:
The revision process was managed by drafting arbitrators designated by the Arbitration Committee (CaptainEek, L235, Wugapodes). |
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.
Name
- 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.
References
- ^ The community has its own version of a contentious topics system. These are most often referred to as general sanctions (GS), but are sometimes referred to as community sanctions or community discretionary sanctions.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Like the two other suggestions use more difficult English. Femke (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I would personally keep DS for historical continuity reasons --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would support Arbitrated Topics, as a preferred term, especially pro Izno's reasoning. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- +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)
Nutshell
- Proposal summary
Change the nutshell box to be more clear and provide more relevant info
- Proposed language
- Rationale
More clear than previous version.
Nutshell (feedback)
Lead section
- Proposal summary
Add a lead section that includes:
- Basic definition of contentious topics
- Expectations for editors
- Proposed language
- 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)
- 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)
- 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,
andeditorsyou should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia
. --Izno (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)EditorsYou are advised to err on the side of caution iftheyyou are unsure whether
AWARENESS
- Proposal summary
The current WP:AWARENESS criteria are replaced with an appealable presumption of awareness following an initial alert.
- Proposed language
- 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)
- Yes please and thank you. This would make life so much easier. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's for the escalated alert, though, not the introductory one. El_C 18:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Like — finally! El_C 17:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Firefangledfeathers: Well, nothing actually happens at the clerks noticeboard. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Does
Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware
apply for the introductory alert? I'm uneasy about the phraseOnly 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)
Alerts
- Proposal summary
New template language, including standardized section headers. Only an WP:UNINVOLVED editor or administrator may place an alert.
- Proposed language
- Proposed new templates
- 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)
- Like. This is a good idea. El_C 17:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I would also back @ActivelyDisinterested's proposal. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Appeals
- 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
- 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)
- Given the underlying nature of AE, this seems like a good change and wording. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- This is fine, but I would rather appeals only go to AE --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- +1 — agreed. El_C 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Agree with the above that appeals should go to AE only. firefly ( t · c ) 20:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would echo Guerillero's comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Single-admin enforcement actions
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
- 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)
- 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)
- +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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)- 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)
- @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)
- Oh, "bespoke" means custom. I learn a new word. El_C 18:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would make any BRD/consensus is required restriction have to go through AE. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
Arbitration Enforcement special enforcement actions
- 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
- 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)
- 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)- +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)
- 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)
- 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)
Restriction duration
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Individual restrictions: when used
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
Page restrictions: enforcement
- 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
- 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)
Warnings
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- @Nosebagbear: That is my read -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Administrator instructions
- Proposal summary
Step by step instructions for administrators performing a special enforcement action
- Proposed language
- 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)
- 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)
Sub-pages for each Contentious Topic
- 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
- 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)
- Is the expectation that the clerks are going to maintain these? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Existing sanctions/continuity
- Proposal summary
All previously enacted DS will be governed by the new procedures.
- Proposed language
- 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)
Designation of contentious topics
- Proposal summary
- Change "authorisation" to "designation" of contentious topics
- Minor tweaks to how conflicts between wordings are handled
- Proposed language
- Rationale
For consistency.
Designation (feedback)
Logging
- Proposal summary
Reducing and simplifying the language around logging
- Proposed language
- 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)
Administrator's role
- Proposal summary
Reducing and simplifying the language
- Proposed language
- Rationale
Part of an effort to make the language easier to understand for all editors while not losing nuance.
Administrator's role (feedback)
- 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)
AE noticeboard
- 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)
- This seems reasonable --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Editnotices and talk page notices
- 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)
- 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)
AE is limited
- 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)
- Yes please. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- +1 — agreed (again). El_C 19:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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 whatregular
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Notice of restriction
- 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
Notice of restriction (feedback)
Implementation motion
- Proposal summary
The motion does three main things:
- Enacts the new procedure (and invites review after one year)
- 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
- 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
Motion (feedback)
Miscellaneous
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
- 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)