Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status as of 00:53 (UTC), Sunday, 28 April 2024 ( Purge)

The revision process will be conducted in four phases:

  1. Phase I community consultation (March – April 2021) (closed)
  2. Phase II community consultation (September – October 2022) (closed)
  3. Proposed decision (November – December 2022)
  4. Implementation: The drafting arbitrators will implement the Committee's decision in conjunction with the Committee's clerks and interested volunteers designated by the Committee.

The revision process was managed by drafting arbitrators designated by the Arbitration Committee ( CaptainEek, L235, Wugapodes).

On this page, arbitrators will consider proposals for the outcome of the review process. After all the proposals have been voted on, the process will conclude with a motion to close.

Comments are welcome on the talk page. The proposed decision will be posted for five days of community review and comment before arbitrators vote on the proposals in order to allow the Committee to receive suggestions for stylistic or typographical amendment.

For these motions there are 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

Name

Proposal summary

The discretionary sanctions (DS) system will be renamed "contentious topics" (CT), and restrictions placed within the DS system will be referred to as "contentious topic restrictions".

Consultation rationale and comments
Language

The language in subsequent proposals reflects the "contentious topics" and "contentious topic restrictions" language. In the event that an alternative name proposal is passed, the wording will be substituted as appropriate.

Vote (Name)

Support
  1. I support a change for the reasons given at the consultation under "Rationale". I think contentious topics is a better name than arbitrated topics because arbitrated topics creates extra ambiguity with the community GS version of this system. I think I could still be convinced to support a name like "heightened scrutiny topics" but I think contentious topics is (1) better than DS and (2) has reasonably high support. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Reasons to oppose the current Other suggestion should probably be in the context of the other suggestion so people who support Another Name don't have to discuss it in two different places. This proposal is only discussing whether 1) to change the name and 2) whether to change the name to CT. Anyway, regarding your creates extra ambiguity with the community GS version of this system, I don't see how. At all. Is "ambiguity" actually the word you intended? I would levy contentious topics as a far worse offender on the point if indeed you mean "ambiguity", categorically. Izno ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. A name change is in the cards. Izno ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Second choice (at least among the current two we're considering). -- BDD ( talk) 01:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. First choice. A new name is a must for me and I think this is slightly better than AT. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Only choice, although I can still live with the status quo of "discretionary sanctions". Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. First choice. I prefer this to DS, and Arbitrated topics. WormTT( talk) 14:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. First choice — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 12:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. A name change is long overdue. "Discretionary sanctions" was esoteric and arcane, and did not tell the average editor what it meant. While I understand "Contentious Topic" in and of itself is a term of art, it is the clearest, most simple term we imagined. I don't like Arbitrated topics because it is simply not evident at a glance what that means. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. There are so many things on this project that got named years ago and the name doesn't really fit with the process but we seem to be stuck with it (I don't personally think "Arbitration" is actually what the committee does at all, but I'm not even going to try and fix that) and I've always felt "discretionary sanctions" was vague and somewhat intimidating. We're trying to get people to understand that when they show up in one of these topic areas, they are not the first, and will not be the last, who are there to Right Great Wrongs. "Contentious topics" expresses that much better than "discretionary sanctions." Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
The name is something I'm still having trouble with, and I think a number of arbs are still thinking through. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Also, another open question is whether Contentious Topic Restrictions should be capitalized or not – the draft currently does not title-case it, Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply
You might think that because I am replying to this comment that I care, even just a little, about whether or not we capitalize "Contentious Topic Restrictions" but you would be wrong. Whatever our grammar mavens in the community and on the committee prefer is great by me. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I continue to think that if we go with this term, it should be capitalized unless we mean the more general sense of topics which are contentious. That may be a reason to prefer the alternative. -- BDD ( talk) 16:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC
Whether it is capitalized or not, it will become a term of art and it will used in the lowercase. This is another reason I oppose the name contentious topics and why I think you should also. Izno ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Per this comment, I've changed "individual restriction" to "editor restriction" to hopefully make it more clear. It's a bigger change, so if an arb disagrees I'll revert it and start a separate amendment vote. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but I have not felt engaged in this process. I am abstaining on each question to make it easier for the committee to find a consensus. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: Arbitrated topics

In place of "contentious topics", the new name will be "arbitrated topics", and the text of all the proposals will reflect that new name.

Support

  1. As discussed at the most recent consultation in addition to the talk page of this decision, I firmly believe that contentious topics as a name will become a term of art comparable to notability and everyone voting in this decision knows how bad that was (we've had two decades of arguing with people who don't understand how Wikipedia's notability isn't the rest of the world's). Contentious topic will do the same, and be more likely, not less, to confuse editors new to editing, and new to editing about both contentious topics and contentious topics, and may indeed (as mentioned at this PD's talk page) lead to support for more, not fewer, restricted topics as people misjudge contentious topics to merit contentious topic restrictions simply due to the area of interest. That's bad. If we're going to make a term of art, and we have to do that regardless of whether we want to or not, it should be a term of art that is sufficiently plain English that you can ferret out what's going on, but insufficiently plain English to overrun the common use of the name we end up picking. Contentious topic falls in the too plain pile for me.

    I am happy to discuss or support other terms of course, but over several weeks nothing seems to have grabbed anyone's happiness, and the discussion that should have happened on the point between arbitrators basically hasn't. -- Izno ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  2. First choice. Consider me convinced. While terms of art may be unavoidable in some circumstances, the cardinal sin of "discretionary sanctions" was the lack of information it conveyed, whereas "arbitrated topics" does very well in the regard. -- BDD ( talk) 01:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Second choice. A new name is a must for me and I think this is slightly worse than CT. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Second choice. WormTT( talk) 14:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Second choice. Agree with Izno that the alternative is likely to become a term of art, but at least the term is more transparent than the original. I think "arbitrated topics" is likely also to become a term of art in that "arbitrated" is not particularly transparent to those unfamiliar with the committee, especially since it will be administered by non-arbitrators. It also doesn't have the benefit of being exdtensible to the GS regime. The community can theoretically apply "contentious topic restrictions" to anything it wants in the same way lots of GS bootstrap DS policy. But what would the community correlary to AT be? Community topics? I think either is fine, but slight preference for the alternative. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. It makes it sound like content decisions in a given topic are being done by arbitration. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. per Maxim's logic. Cabayi ( talk) 12:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. I prefer Contentious Topics per Wugapodes. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Per my vote on CT. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I understand the intent but I think CT is a more direct term and therefore easier for newcomers to understand. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
  • I'd like to suggest that arbitrators in this section supporting this name as a 2nd choice instead oppose the amendment, as this section means to modify the original proposal, not be a separate proposal to be enacted. It would do two things that I think are beneficial: 1) it makes it clear to clerks, and 2) it makes it obvious that this choice needs its own separate majority to the originating proposal for the remaining arbs who have not voted. Izno ( talk) 22:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Nutshell

Proposal summary

Clarify the "in a nutshell" box.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Contentious topics are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project. Administrators are allowed to impose editing restrictions on editors who do not follow project expectations within contentious topics. Administrators are also allowed to set special rules on pages within a contentious topic to prevent inappropriate editing.

Vote (Nutshell)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 01:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Cabayi ( talk) 14:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. One of the ways to make DS (AT/CT) more accessible for non-experts. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Primefac ( talk) 13:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. WormTT( talk) 14:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Lead section

Proposal summary

Add a lead section that describes the ArbCom contentious topics system and describes expectations of editors.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics (abbreviated CT). These are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. [a] Not all topics that are controversial have been designated as contentious topics – this procedure applies only to those topics designated by the Arbitration Committee ( list). When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project.

Editing a contentious topic

Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

You should err on the side of caution if you are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations.

Within contentious topics, administrators have the ability to set editor restrictions (restrictions on editing by particular editors) and page restrictions (special rules on how particular pages can be edited). Some of these abilities may be exercised by a single administrator while others require a consensus of administrators. All editor and page restrictions may be appealed.

Vote (Lead)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 01:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Cabayi ( talk) 14:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I think this makes the topic understandable to a wide range of editors in a way that's very important to me. I consider this LEAD to be policy as much as the text that follows, not just a summary as we would expect in an article. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Primefac ( talk) 13:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. WormTT( talk) 14:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Awareness

Proposal summary

The current awareness criteria are replaced with an appealable presumption of awareness following an initial alert. The use of the standard template alert becomes optional after a user's first alert.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using [CT/TOPICNOTICE] template. Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert, and these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee. When alerting an editor who has previously received any contentious topic alert, the [LINK] template may be used, but any message that conveys the contentious topic designation is acceptable. [b]

If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing a designating contentious topic when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) should be imposed. [c] Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware but may attempt to refute this presumption on appeal. [d]

Draft template language

Edits to the templates may be approved by the clerks following consultation with the Arbitration Committee.

First-time CT alert recipients

You have recently made edits related to [CT code], which is a designated contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. 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. When editing a designated contentious topic ( full list), Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

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, which are described in editnotices on affected pages; and
refrain from gaming the system.

You should err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic [LINK TO TOPIC-SPECIFIC CT PAGE]. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ct/aware}} template.

CT alert templates for those previously alerted to DS

Information icon You have recently made edits related to [CT code]. This is a standard message to inform you that [CT code] is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see [LINK]. [MAYBE: For a summary of the differences between discretionary sanctions and contentious topics, see WP:CTVSDS].]

Subsequent CT alert templates

Information icon You have recently made edits related to [CT code]. This is a standard message to inform you that [CT code] is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see [LINK].

Vote (Awareness)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Cabayi ( talk) 14:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. It would be unfair that an individual is sanctioned for something they were not aware about, but I feel the above is sufficient awareness requirement and has a refutation option WormTT( talk) 14:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. I find this much preferable to the "well I guess I get my annual DS notice for XYZ today" yearly requirement that currently exists. Primefac ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Per Primefac. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. Awareness should not be so bureaucratic. This is a step in the right direction. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. The alert/awareness system has long been one of the most needlessly over-complicated things on WP. This is surely a step in the right direction. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
One outstanding question is whether information currently found in the notes should be moved into the body of the text. I am leaning toward keeping it as is but think I could still be convinced. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Clarified that the footnote criteria are independently valid ways to be aware, per @ Vanamonde93's comment. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I've changed these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing. to these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee. per the discussion below. Please revert if you disagree. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I do disagree but I'm not prepared to revert because that feels like a large reaction to something this small. The reason I disagree is that it feels like we're adding "wikilaw" for something no one has asked for. This runs counter to the overall simplification goal. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks to Procrastinating Reader who pointed out on the talk page a 2018 RfC which absent an ArbCom motion feels like it would have gained consensus. That said I think that discussion does show the difficulties any bot oriented proposal will take. However, the past demand is enough for me to not care so much about the particular bold change Kevin did. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: removing bot prohibition

Amend the previous proposal by striking the following: and these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing.

Support
  1. Awareness should be a mere statement of fact. A bot which hands out the templates impartially is inherently less confrontational/adversarial than having another editor place the template. Cabayi ( talk) 14:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Speaking while holding my BAG hat in hand, bot requests are not approved until there is a clear plan and a consensus that the task should be run; a user with a plan still needs to have community consensus before filing a BRFA, especially if it is a task for automated notification such as this. If we do not strike this prohibition, then any proposal to create a bot-assisted notification system would need a willing bot operator with a plan, consensus from the community, and a motion from a future ArbCom to strike the prohibition. If we strike this prohibition, the only step that is not being taken is the final one; would a future ArbCom decline to strike this prohibition if there was community consensus that a bot to deliver notifications was acceptable? I cannot think of a reason for them to do so.
    In other words, I do see Izno's point, and largely agree with it, but that particular "needle" will be threaded either way, and this saves a future Committee time and effort. This is not necessarily a hill I feel a strong need to defend, though. Primefac ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. I support Kevin's amended wording. If someone wishes to make a bot, I'd be excited, but they will need to work with the Arbs. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. I don't think I can support removing this prohibition without also making it clear what an automated system would be required to do to deliver alerts. At a minimum, the name of an editor must be associated with each specific notice so as to prevent abuse. It doesn't need to be in the text of the talk page as delivered, but I think that requirement still makes it difficult to see a benefit of allowing bot or semi-automated editing that some espouse (namely, that people think these can be "revenge"-driven). Maybe others can think of other requirements or other ways to thread the needle; I'd be happy to see an amendment laying out some of those requirements. Izno ( talk) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Izno. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. A bot would lack nuance. Do minor AWB edits—think of a simple, unambiguous typo fix like tpyo->typo—really merit an awareness notice? Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. To be clear, I support bot notificaiton - however, I do not feel this should be achieved by simply removing the text. I'd rather an actual plan for how bot notification should work was put in. WormTT( talk) 10:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I do ultimately think bots should be able to do this, but see the merits of having a plan first. We should also consider whether to disentangle bot and automated editing in this regard. -- BDD ( talk) 15:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. I see Primefac's point, but ultimately I think the implementation of a bot should be subject to primarily committee oversight. Striking this line essentially means BAG gets the final say on how the bot runs, but given the issues at stake, I don't think BAG is structured in a way that makes me comfortable delegating. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Count me as a vote for "yes, someone can propose a bot, but ask us first". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 12:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    One possible compromise is and these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 12:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. I am also not opposed to the very idea of a bot doing this, but I do support the idea that both the committee and BAG need to be on board with it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
  • Cabayi's argument seems convincing. Could we lift this prohibition and leave it for a later bot request to refine the parameters? Perhaps that doesn't answer the point about non-bot automated editing. -- BDD ( talk) 22:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'd personally rather prohibit until someone comes up with the set of requirements. This is something sufficiently severable from the rest of the procedure that I anticipate a future ArbCom could look at a proposed bot in relative isolation at A/R/M if the community proposed the specific requirements or if an ArbCom worked on the requirements itself. Izno ( talk) 22:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I agree with everything Izno wrote here except I would see it as eligible for proposal at ARCA. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I don't see anybody putting in the work on a bot task if it's prohibited by our ruling. The door needs to be eased open somehow, and this is the first step. Cabayi ( talk) 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Would adding "without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee" work to open the door? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'd be fine with adding that. I don't think I'm too worried about Cabayi's concern, but the additional clause does nothing to harm and probably saves time for someone in the future. There's always a wikihistorian available to point to the vote-taking and the fact that most of the opposition is along these lines, but that takes some time. Izno ( talk) 22:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Done. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Appeals and amendments

Proposal summary
  • Lowers the level of consensus required for a successful appeal from "clear and substantial consensus" to "clear consensus"
  • Provides clear standards of review on appeal
Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

  1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if:

  • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; [e]
  • The contentious topic restriction was imposed by a single administrator and it was imposed or last renewed more than a year ago; or
  • An appeal is successful (see below).

An appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

  • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
  • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
  • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review

On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

  1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
  3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

  1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
  3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

Vote (Appeals and amendments)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 10:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Primefac ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Amendment: Appeal timeframe

Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately before the "Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction" header:

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I agree with Izno below that this should not be generally the case, but if the user keeps coming back. WormTT( talk) 10:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Agree with WTT and Izno that "tendentious appeals" should be added in some way to the language to indicate it is a precursor for this sort of moratorium. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Support is conditional on a note or footnote, along the lines of what Izno indicated below, being added. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. The Committee occasionally takes this tactic, and I see no reason why the admins of AE shouldn't be able to either. I'm fine with a note pointing out that this shouldn't be general practice. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. This is clearly aimed at serial appellants and people who just can't seem to drop the stick, and that is exactly the sort of thing the committee is here to deal with. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. Unnecessary. This should not be used routinely, and should be saved only for people who are using the appeal system disruptively. If they are using the appeal system disruptively, they can be sanctioned as needed to stop the disruption under CT anyway. So our process can already do what we want, but the proposed change opens the door to misunderstandings that we could simply avoid by leaving this as something for admins to resolve through practice. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    The inspiration for this suggested amendment was actually an ARCA request from two weeks ago. While the new language removes the ban on banning appeals, I think I'd rather give the hint here that it may be a potential outcome, rather than relying solely on DS's "anything to ensure the good function of the wiki" which is retained in the new policy. Izno ( talk) 04:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    We could also bump this up from rough consensus to clear consensus if that would be better? Under the revised procedure, those two levels are different. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
We can also assign this ability to both AE and AN: A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Done. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I'd like a note here that says this should generally be used only to prevent users who have posted multiple specious appeals from continuing to appeal. -- Izno ( talk) 18:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I agree with Izno and suggest it be accomplished through a footnote. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
How's this wording for a note? This authority should generally be exercised only when a user has submitted multiple specious appeals.
I don't know how I feel in substance about this note. Is it fair for us to regularly impose 6-12 month no-appeal periods after a first appeal but require AE to wait for multiple specious appeals? I think I am generally happy deferring to the wisdom of AE admins, with an appeal to ARCA possible if the decision was truly egregious (constituting "an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion"). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I considered that practice of ours before voting in support. I am not sure what my logic was to support it anyway. And if the case is extraordinary, generally isn't applicable. (There's a part of me that says that any extraordinary cases probably won't continue to be able to edit instead as a resolution.)
This may be a point of potential improvement in the future if AE admins are finding that users are abusing the latitude we give them to appeal, but they already have that latitude and haven't particularly abused it. Additionally, as I recall saying elsewhere, we have fallbacks in the appeals system, one of which is now the addition of admins kicking it to ARCA spontaneously. Izno ( talk) 22:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I am personally happier with no note. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: earlier stages preferred

Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately after the numbered list describing the stages of appeal:

Earlier stages of this appeal process are significantly preferred to later stages.

Support
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
After some discussion and reflection, I might switch to an abstain or oppose on this amendment. I don't feel strongly that it should be included, and the structure of the section (and the differing standards of review at AE/AN and ARCA) already convey this to the extent that I'd like. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Moved to oppose. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Izno ( talk) 18:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  1. BDD ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. WTT makes a compelling argument; I would support his wording or similar but agree that the current language is not overly clear. Primefac ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Per comment below. Barkeep49 ( talk)
  3. I would support WTT's wording. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Moving to oppose. I think the existing wording (under "Standard of review") makes it clear that it is harder to succeed at ARCA than at AE/AN, and that is as much as needs to be said on this point. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I'm fine explicitly opposing this. Izno ( talk) 23:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. WormTT( talk) 08:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 11:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
This is my attempt to capture the spirit of this comment, but I'm not tied to the wording. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't like the wording at all I'm afraid. "Preferred" and "earlier" don't make sense in my head, who's preference for example, and earlier implies time rather than numerically earlier. Could I suggest that we add something prior to the numbered list, like "An editor appealing a restriction may, in order of escalation,:"? Alternatively, "Editors should use the method with the least escalation unless there is a good reason not to"?
I don't oppose this wording I just.. don't like it. WormTT( talk) 11:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I agree with WTT though I don't love his wording. "Editors are typically expected to go through the stages in order" or "Outside of exceptional circumstances, editors are expected to go through the stages in order" are my 2 attempts. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I prefer that second one but either would be fine. The other thing I'm musing about is that this section kind of wants a link to the standards of review a couple sections down to help an editor make the decision in the context of where the options are presented, but that gets kind of clunky. Izno ( talk) 20:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Hm, I think "preferred" captures my thinking best – we prefer it but we won't force it. If we really just mean "Outside of exceptional circumstances, editors are expected to go through the stages in order", I don't think we need to codify it – the fact that we present it in these three stages says enough. (Also, the standards of review convey this message quite clearly: AE will reverse a sanction for a broader range of reasons than ARCA will.) I'm really quite indifferent as to whether we add this sentence, so I'm happy to let it be dropped. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: earlier stages preferred (2)

Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately after the numbered list describing the stages of appeal:

Outside of exceptional circumstances, editors are expected to go through the stages in order.

Support
  1. Izno ( talk) 23:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. I'd support this, but I'd also be fine with no text appearing at all. WormTT( talk) 08:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. As a statement of our preference & expectation, it's an innocuous statement. If you're reading it as a requirement (which I don't) I'd have to oppose. Cabayi ( talk) 11:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. I've pondered this and I don't think this accurately reflects how I think appeals should work. I don't think one should have to formally appeal to the enforcing admin before appealing at AE (for the same reason that we don't ask folks to appeal their blocks by pinging the blocking administrator and waiting for an answer before using {{ unblock}} – there's value in allowing for immediate independent review). And, I think the existing language specifying different standards of review at ARCA vs. AE/AN sufficiently warns people that they're probably going to be more successful at AE absent exceptional circumstances, as I wrote in my oppose for the previous amendment. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    And just to clarify my preference, my first choice is to have no note at all. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Cabayi: As written here, this certainly doesn't read as just as an unenforceable "preference & expectation". If we really do want it to be unenforceable guidance, I think that should be much more clear. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. This creates an unnecessary gate to appeal. Contacting the unblocking admin is a good start, but not always. What if that admin is no longer an admin? They're on a Wikibreak? They made a bad decision in the first place and are being obstinate about it? I don't think we have to mandate that as the first step. Now, editors can skip that step at their own risk I'd say, but I just don't see how demanding it be first helps. Nor is AE or AN always the second step. If the underlying decision was the result of some fundamental error of process, editors should be able to jump to ARCA. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Thinking about it more, it means that one would have to appeal to the enforcing admin first, and I can't fault someone for wanting a third party to review the sanction first or instead. Maxim(talk) 19:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. I feel like this just gives people who like to argue about nothing more nothing to argue about. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. I am fine with this text appearing, but similar to WTT I think I would prefer no text over this text. Primefac ( talk) 19:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 21:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. I'm fine with no text, and if I'm going to be the hammer vote on adopting this, I'd want some more agreement. As it stands, I don't think we're seeing eye-to-eye here and pushing this through seems ill advised given the opposition concerns. If we feel strongly about this we can work on it on its own and pass a motion that can get more of a consensus later. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
  • Proposed Barkeep's second suggestion from above, but if someone wants to express a preference for his first option in this context, I'm also fine with that text. Izno ( talk) 23:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: appeal template

Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately after the numbered list describing the stages of appeal:

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 02:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Primefac ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. The precise format of the template can be worked out later. In general, having a standardized format will make it easier to appeal and help prevent appeals becoming a mess. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 12:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. I understand Barkeep's concern but we can always modify the template. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. I'm opposed to sectioning the people whose opinions will be deciding the appeal. So at AE this is uninvolved Admin and at AN it's uninvolved editors. I strongly support having a template that is approprite to AN as a forum which our current template is not. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    In a sandbox, could you sketch what that might look like? I'm leery of approprite to AN as a forum. :) Izno ( talk) 20:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Barkeep49: The intent of this proposal was to bring the template under the jurisdiction of the arbs/clerks. I'm happy to commit to making uninvolved editor comments unsectioned at AN. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Izno my thought is that AN tends to have fewer sections for normal appeals - often just a single section. When someone posts the AE template it stands out at AN vs AE whose table of contents is formatted to support the templates. And AN tends to be a less sectioned venue than AE so it would follow, for me, that the template used there would have fewer overall sections as well. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    To everyone involved in this reform, AN is a mess, and I don't think we should take our cue from that mess. I can see removing some of what is in the current template, but not as much as I think you would prefer. Izno ( talk) 00:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Agree with Izno here. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
The template will hopefully be revised to be simpler to use once the clerks gain the authority to do so. The intent of this proposal is to explicitly require the template (and the 500-word limit) to be used at AN, per this comment. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: Allow a priori consent

Amend the previous proposal by inserting a note after "...the change,..." reading "The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction."

Support
  1. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. I'd prefer admins didn't do this as standard (because if you're working in these area I'd like you to be taking responsibility for the consequences of the additional power you have), but I can see circumstances that it is the right thing for an admin to do. WormTT( talk) 11:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. I can see downsides to this, but I can see this being useful on occasion if only to avoid the extra bureaucracy of needing to track down the original administrator. Primefac ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Gave it a think; I see the "edge case" pointed out by Wugapodes happening more than any other detriment, but also to echo Barkeep49: if this becomes an issue ArbCom can quite easily fix it. Primefac ( talk) 13:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. BDD ( talk) 15:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I think this is worth trying. If it goes wrong it feels like a thing ArbCom would be able to fix fairly fast. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. A number of admins do this with regular admin actions, so I think this could be easily extended here to save time and energy. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. I'm not 100% sure this is a good idea, but the risk seems relatively low if it doesn't work in practice we can amend later. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. I've been sitting on this for a few days since I was not sure. I think where I go is an oppose here. Izno ( talk) 22:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
Pending resolution of my wording suggestion below. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Moved to support. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  1. I don't think this is a great idea, but there's an corner-case (that I'm only now realizing) where an admin thinks a user restriction is no longer needed but the imposing admin is away. Only the sanctioned user can appeal (so the admin cannot) but the admin can't modify the sanction without affirmative consent (which the absent admin can't give). So this is kinda needed, but I would prefer some other solution. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
I think there's a reasonable thing here but it strikes me as somewhat antithetical to DS to allow any admin to provide consent a priori, as noted by ToBeFree on the talk page. Izno ( talk) 22:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
How about "The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction."? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Done. Izno ( talk) 18:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Looking at this, I think I could maybe support with some sketch (note?) of good times to provide such consent. But when I look at some potential cases (help me out here DS admins or Arb colleagues), I can't see the upsides. All decisions? No, I don't think so. You're using the wrong administrative power if so. "I'll be away for a week" -> Are you really the right admin to enforce the decision (see also ADMINACCT)? Izno ( talk) 19:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I saw this as an admin being able to make a statement along the lines of "I am imposing this restriction, but any admin can overturn me if it is appealed." I do agree that it should not be used for every action by an admin, but I can see instances where it might be a borderline case or similar where the administering administrator sees it as some form of "weak" need. Primefac ( talk) 19:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
In the scenario of "if appealed", a consensus (AE/AN: admins/editors) can already override that original administrator's judgement. I don't think that gets me to "this is a necessary enhancement to the policies". Izno ( talk) 20:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
An appeal will happen one way or another, but if the imposing admin is unable to give consent to modify, a consensus of admins must be found. If the admin has already given a priori consent, any admin can modify the restriction without needing a group consensus. You and Wugapodes have raised some good points, though, so I will give this another think and see how I feel about it. Primefac ( talk) 09:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
For those opposing because you think an admin shouldn't be able to consent ahead of time, if this doesn't pass, I'd encourage you to write a separate proposal prohibiting that. Even without this amendment, it isn't clear that it's not allowed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I'd personally rather ping all the arbs onlist or elsewhere to tell them to come vote, which might moot the question thereby saving myself time and getting this proposed decision done, since I am the lone actual opposition on this one at this time. ;) It's been public for a couple weeks now and voting-able for over a week at this point. Izno ( talk) 23:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use

Proposal summary
  • Individual administrators now have access to a standard set of page and editor restrictions to enact, plus any that are designated for a particular topic area.
  • Some abilities are now restricted to use by a rough consensus of administrators at AE:
    • Taking actions outside the "standard set" of restrictions
    • Imposing restrictions that can't be reversed by any administrator for longer than one year (but page restrictions can be renewed)
Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content
Contentious topic restrictions (level 2 header)

Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions in contentious topic areas. Those contentious topic restrictions take the form of editor restrictions and page restrictions. Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. [f]

Editor restrictions

Administrators may impose restrictions on individual editors ("editor restrictions") in contentious topics who do not follow the expectations listed in #Editing a contentious topic as a contentious topic restriction.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following editor restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of editor restrictions:

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any editor 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.

One year after being imposed, editor restrictions imposed by a single administrator may be modified or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

Page restrictions

Administrators may impose special rules and restrictions that apply to pages within contentious topics ("page restrictions") to minimise disruption as a contentious topic restriction. These page restrictions apply to all editors editing the restricted page.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following page restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of page restrictions:

  • page protection,
  • revert restrictions,
  • the "consensus required" restriction, [g]
  • the "enforced BRD" restriction, [h] and
  • any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee as part of the standard set of page restrictions for a particular contentious topic.

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any page 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.

An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

One year after being imposed (or renewed), page restrictions imposed by a single administrator may be renewed, modified, or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

Renewal of page restrictions

If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and logging the renewal. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Procedural summary

Imposed by: Single administrator Rough consensus of administrators at AE
Authorized restrictions
  • The "standard set" of individual or page restrictions; and
  • Any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single admin in a particular contentious topic.
  • Any action available to single administrators; and
  • Any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Maximum length Indefinite; reversible by any uninvolved administrator after one year. However, page restrictions may be renewed. Indefinite
Modifications by
  • Any administrator, if the administrator who first imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator;
  • A clear consensus of uninvolved editors at the administrators’ noticeboard;
  • A clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard; or
  • A majority of the Arbitration Committee voting on a motion in response to a request for amendment filed with the Arbitration Committee.

Vote (Contentious topic restrictions)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
One open question: should the "extended-confirmed restriction" ( WP:ECR) be added to the standard set of page restrictions, or is it sufficient to allow page protections (which include extendedconfirmed protection)? One argument against including it is that WP:ECR is written to be topic-wide rather than page-specific. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the existing allowance for use of ECP as a form of protection is sufficient. -- Izno ( talk) 18:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Agree with Izno. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: Limiting blocks to one year

Old language

Amend the previous proposal by modifying the second-to-last paragraph of "Editor restrictions" to read as follows: 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. These measures may have any duration, including indefinite, except that sitewide blocks are limited to one year in duration.

New language (1 December)

The proposal titled "Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use", as amended by the amendment titled "Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions", is further amended by inserting at the end of the "Duration of restrictions" section the following text:

Additionally, sitewide blocks become ordinary administrator actions one year after imposition, whether or not imposed by a consensus of administrators at AE.

The drafting arbitrators are directed to modify the "Procedural summary" table within the "Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use" proposal and the "Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction" section of the "Appeals and amendments" proposal for consistency with the changes made by this amendment.

Support
  1. While Kevin notes that a consensus of AN can site-ban indefinitely, after this reform it will take a rough consensus of administrators, so a lower standard among a smaller set of people and for an action that is harder to overturn than a regular site ban. This combination of easier to impose and harder to be appealed (even with the new standard imposed by this reform) is why I think ArbCom should own site bans under its purview directly. It's a serious responsibility and this kind of serious responsibility is important to have community consensus, through our election, rather than who happens to show up to an AE discussion. So I would prefer the current practice of "AE block for 1 year, indefinite as a normal admin action thereafter" to be an appropriate standard that is working and should be kept. I will note that we also seem likely to enact a referral strategy to ARCA which would be another, appropriate, way for AE admins to advance an indefinite ArbCom backed block. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think the suggested amendment here does not make it obvious that the indefinite would be as a normal action thereafter and would support with an appropriate (possibly only one or two word) change. Izno ( talk) 22:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    If Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions passes, the way to capture this would be adding the following at the bottom of the "Duration of restrictions" section: Additionally, sitewide blocks become ordinary administrator actions after one year, whether or not imposed by a consensus of administrators at AE. The wording is more awkward if that amendment doesn't pass. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Barkeep, and with the drafting changes suggested by Kevin. I'm not comfortable delegating what is essentially our power to issue site bans. We should be the ones taking the fall for those. — Wug· a·po·des​ 06:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. I'm persuaded then. I prefer the idea that an indefinite action can be taken but it becomes a normal admin action after a year if that helps. WormTT( talk) 11:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Support with L235's addition and per prior comment. Izno ( talk) 23:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Barkeep's thought process is convincing. Better for the Committee to take the blame, especially in edge cases. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. I was set to oppose this, but I find the above arguments compelling. I can't express enough how much I appreciate the work of the admins at AE, but I don't think indefinite site bans that can only be appealed to the committee should come from anywhere other than the committee itself. This is of course with the caveat that the committee should have the back of those AE admins and if a one-year block expires and the user just starts back up with exactly what they were doing before, the ArbCom banhammer should come down swiftly. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Good point - with the new referral method there's a real way for AE admins to indicate that the 1 year CT + indef admin was insufficient. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. A consensus of editors at AN can site-ban a user indefinitely. I don't see a problem with allowing consensus of sysops at AE to indefinitely block a user for conduct within a contentious topic. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Just reaffirming my oppose here even with the updated language, per arbcom-en request. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Arbitration processes have inreasingly moved away from time-limited sanctions. If someone had done something to merit being blocked or sanctioned for a whole year, there are chances that earlier interventions did not do anything to deter the issue at hand. I don't think it's unresaonble to want to have some assurances after a year that such behaviour won't recur, which in practice involves appealing an indefinite sanction. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 19:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Also affirming. -- BDD ( talk) 21:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. There's nothing special about day 365 which will cause the editor to suddenly see the issue clearly. An indef block which allows the editor to articulate their understanding of the issue and resolve to reform sooner, or later, is appropriate. Indefinite is not infinite. Cabayi ( talk) 12:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Primefac ( talk) 20:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
Barkeep has said he has some rationale here, so I'd like to see that before voting. Izno ( talk) 18:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Now that the other amendment is passing, I've switched out the language above. (ping to @ Barkeep49, Wugapodes, Worm That Turned, Izno, and CaptainEek:, please revert if you disagree.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: wording of duration language

Withdrawing this proposal in favor of new revised one below. Any arb who prefers this one, please feel free to revert. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amend the previous proposal to read as follows:

Extended content
Contentious topic restrictions (level 2 header)

Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions in contentious topic areas. Those contentious topic restrictions take the form of editor restrictions and page restrictions. Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. [i]

Editor restrictions

Administrators may impose restrictions on individual editors ("editor restrictions") in contentious topics who do not follow the expectations listed in #Editing a contentious topic as a contentious topic restriction.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following editor restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of editor restrictions:

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any editor 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.

One year after being imposed, editor restrictions imposed by a single administrator may be modified or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

Page restrictions

Administrators may impose special rules and restrictions that apply to pages within contentious topics ("page restrictions") to minimise disruption as a contentious topic restriction. These page restrictions apply to all editors editing the restricted page.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following page restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of page restrictions:

  • page protection,
  • revert restrictions,
  • the "consensus required" restriction, [j]
  • the "enforced BRD" restriction, [k] and
  • any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee as part of the standard set of page restrictions for a particular contentious topic.

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any page 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.

An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

One year after being imposed (or renewed), page restrictions imposed by a single administrator may be renewed, modified, or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

Duration of restrictions

Contentious topic restrictions may be imposed for any fixed length of time, or for an indefinite period.

However, one year after being imposed (or last renewed, if applicable), contentious topic restrictions which were imposed by a single administrator may be amended or revoked without going through the appeals and amendments process in the same way as an ordinary administrator action.

Renewal of page restrictions

If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and logging the renewal. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Procedural summary

Imposed by: Single administrator Rough consensus of administrators at AE
Authorized restrictions
  • The "standard set" of individual or page restrictions; and
  • Any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single admin in a particular contentious topic.
  • Any action available to single administrators; and
  • Any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Maximum length Indefinite; reversible by any uninvolved administrator after one year. However, page restrictions may be renewed. Indefinite
Modifications by
  • Any administrator, if the administrator who first imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator;
  • A clear consensus of uninvolved editors at the administrators’ noticeboard;
  • A clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard; or
  • A majority of the Arbitration Committee voting on a motion in response to a request for amendment filed with the Arbitration Committee.
Support
  1. Weakly support; see my comment below. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
The changes here are purely stylistic and not substantive. I think this language might be more clear, but I am happy either way. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The actual repeated phrase that still is inconsistent relative to the draft on arbwiki (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.) isn't adjusted though? :) -- Izno ( talk) 18:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Fixed in both the top-level proposal and this one. I think this one could still be worded more clearly... I'll think it over more. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions

Summary

This amendment improves the clarity and organization of the "Contentious topic restrictions" section. It reorganizes the section by removing the "Editor restrictions" and "Page restrictions" subsections, which had a significant amount of duplicate text. Those subsections are replaced with "Standard set", "Duration of restrictions", and "Restriction notices".

In addition, this amendment reinstates the requirement that an enforcing administrator notify the restricted user when imposing a restriction. That requirement exists in the DS procedure but got dropped by a drafting error.

Finally, this amendment would harmonize the "Continuity" section, which references the "Contentious topic restrictions" section, with the above changes.

Language

Amend the previous proposal to read as follows:

Extended content
Contentious topic restrictions (level 2 header)

Administrators may are authorized to impose contentious topic restrictions in contentious topic areas. Those contentious topic restrictions take the form of editor restrictions and page restrictions.

Editor restrictions prohibit a specific editor from making edits described in the restriction and may be imposed on editors who do not follow the expectations listed in #Editing a contentious topic in a contentious topic. Page restrictions prohibit all editors on a particular page from making edits described in the restriction and may be imposed to minimize disruption in a contentious topic.

Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. [l]

Single administrators may only impose restrictions in the standard set of contentious topic restrictions. A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.

Standard set

The following editor restrictions constitute the standard set of editor restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:

The following page restrictions constitute the standard set of page restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:

  • page protection,
  • revert restrictions,
  • the "consensus required" restriction, [m]
  • the "enforced BRD" restriction, [n] and
  • other restrictions that have been specifically designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single administrator in a particular contentious topic.
Duration of restrictions

Contentious topic restrictions may be imposed for any fixed length of time, or for an indefinite period.

However, one year after being imposed (or last renewed, if applicable), contentious topic restrictions which were imposed by a single administrator may be amended or revoked without going through the appeals and amendments process in the same way as an ordinary administrator action.

Restriction notices

An administrator who imposes an editor restriction must provide a notice on the restricted editor's talk page specifying the reason for the restriction and informing the restricted editor of the appeal process.

An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

Editor restrictions

Administrators may impose restrictions on individual editors ("editor restrictions") in contentious topics who do not follow the expectations listed in #Editing a contentious topic as a contentious topic restriction.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following editor restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of editor restrictions:

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any editor 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.

One year after being imposed, editor restrictions imposed by a single administrator may be modified or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

Page restrictions

Administrators may impose special rules and restrictions that apply to pages within contentious topics ("page restrictions") to minimise disruption as a contentious topic restriction. These page restrictions apply to all editors editing the restricted page.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following page restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of page restrictions:

  • page protection,
  • revert restrictions,
  • the "consensus required" restriction, [o]
  • the "enforced BRD" restriction, [p] and
  • any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee as part of the standard set of page restrictions for a particular contentious topic.

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any page 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.

An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

One year after being imposed (or renewed), page restrictions imposed by a single administrator may be renewed, modified, or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

Renewal of page restrictions

If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and logging the renewal. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Logging
This part in italics will go here in the merged procedure but is separately voted on at #Logging.

Contentious topic restrictions must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action. [q] Administrators who renew, change, or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.

Administrators should clearly and unambiguously label their actions as contentious topic restrictions (such as in the block summary, page protection summary, edit summary, or talk page message announcing the action, whichever is appropriate). [r]

Procedural summary

Imposed by: Single administrator Rough consensus of administrators at AE
Authorized restrictions
  • The "standard set" of individual or page restrictions; and
  • Any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single admin in a particular contentious topic.
  • Any action available to single administrators; and
  • Any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Maximum length Indefinite; reversible by any uninvolved administrator after one year. However, page restrictions may be renewed. Indefinite
Modifications by
  • Any administrator, if the administrator who first imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator;
  • A clear consensus of uninvolved editors at the administrators’ noticeboard;
  • A clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard; or
  • A majority of the Arbitration Committee voting on a motion in response to a request for amendment filed with the Arbitration Committee.

Additionally, to maintain consistency in linking and wording, the " Continuity" proposal is amended by changing the two bullet points to read as follows:

Extended content
  • Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions are now subject to renewal, modification, and revocation by uninvolved administrators in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year in accordance with #Page restrictions #Duration of restrictions and #Renewal of page restrictions.
  • Previously-enacted single-admin editor restrictions do not, as a result of #Duration of restrictions, lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions" become subject to modification and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year.

Vote (Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions)

Support
  1. I might suggest the obvious-to-me additional header above The following editor restrictions constitute the standard, but otherwise this is an improvement organizationally. It may have been wise to ensure the more substantive changes to wording and the re-addition of a previous requirement were proposed separate to this one, but I think the latter is fine since it's retaining a good part of the status quo.

    I also think this suggested amendment could plausibly be part of the above now-boxed amendment which has some support already. Izno ( talk) 00:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  2. As proposed now, the wording here is better than the original proposal: it adds clarity and organizational strength without changing the substance. If both this and "Amendment: Limiting blocks to one year" pass, I'm sure we can insert the appropriate language under the new "Duration of restrictions" section. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. — Wug· a·po·des​ 06:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. BDD ( talk) 00:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. WormTT( talk) 10:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 11:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. Primefac ( talk) 20:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. One of the main goals of this extended reform process is to make this system less byzantine and easier to understand, and I feel this does that. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Arbitrator comments

Here's what a revision (more textually extensive but does not change the substance) that wholly eliminates the repeated phrases would look like – @ Izno: What do you think? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Oh, this text would actually add one substantive requirement, which is a requirement for notifying restricted users that currently exists (with different wording) in WP:AC/DS but missed the consultation: An administrator who imposes an editor restriction must provide a notice on the restricted editor's talk page specifying the reason for the restriction and informing the restricted editor of the appeal process. An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages. Additionally, administrators must log all contentious topic restrictions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The one outstanding awkward phrasing here is "the action is taken" (which is also in the parent proposal). I guess it's OK, but I'd still like something that flows better. How about "the decision to impose the restriction is taken"? More lengthy but also more clear? I'm not sure. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the problem you're having is that the action is a phrase that has no clear referent, being that it's the first time 'action' is used in this context (and maybe this whole page?). While I think you could remove the entire sentence without particular loss of clarity, here's a suggestion for rephrasing: Whether a restriction is imposed by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") changes what that restriction can be. Or possibly do a better job of summarizing, using the notion of level of consensus: The level of consensus changes what kinds of restrictions can be imposed. Izno ( talk) 00:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Izno: I've removed the sentence and added a "Standard set" header per your suggestions. I've also added a section harmonizing the "Continuity" proposal, which references this one, because the new language has new sections and does not use the terminology "lose [] status as contentious topic restrictions". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Maxim and Wugapodes: I've withdrawn the previous proposal in favor of this one, but if you prefer the previous one please feel free to revert it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Enforcement

Proposal summary

Clarifies how restrictions are enforced.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Editors must comply with contentious topic restrictions. Editors who disagree with a contentious topic restriction may appeal it, but the restriction remains in effect until it is revoked or modified by an administrator.

Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted. [s]

Editors who breach an editor or page restriction may be blocked or subjected to further editor restrictions.

However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if:

  1. The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and
  2. The restricted page displayed an editnotice ([CT EDITNOTICE]) specifying the page restriction.

Vote (Enforcement)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. WormTT( talk) 11:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. BDD ( talk) 15:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

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
Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Administrators may warn editors for conduct that falls short of the expectations in a contentious topic. Administrators may choose to log warnings in the arbitration enforcement log. Warnings that are logged in the arbitration enforcement log may be appealed like other editor restrictions. An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.

Vote (Warnings)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Administrator instructions

Language

The Arbitration Committee will, acting through its members, clerks, and other editors designated by the Committee, maintain instructions for enforcing administrators.

Consultation rationale and comments
Example

Vote (Administrator instructions)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Contentious topic subpages

Language

The Arbitration Committee will, acting through its members, clerks, and other editors designated by the Committee, maintain a subpage of the 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
Consultation rationale and comments
Example

Vote (Contentious topic subpages)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Editnotices and talk page notices

Language

The Arbitration Committee will, acting through its members, clerks, and other editors designated by the Committee, modify contentious topics editnotices and talk page notices with the following broad goals:

  • Creating two editnotice templates: one for optional use on pages with no page restrictions, and one for mandatory use on pages with page restrictions;
  • Using clear and concise formatting when describing page restrictions in place of long individual lines; and
  • Creating custom ArbCom-maintained templates for cases with existing topic-wide restrictions (such as Template:Editnotice GMO 1RR).
Consultation rationale and comments
Example

Vote (Editnotices and talk page notices)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Sure, per discussion on the talk page. Izno ( talk) 19:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Banner blindness mentioned below is concerning, but will support here. WormTT( talk) 11:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. BDD ( talk) 15:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Echo Izno and WTT — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Agree with the banner blindness concern but this is still helpful for banners are used. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. (until a banner-blindness fix appears) Cabayi ( talk) 12:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. Since we control what the banners look like, we have control over banner blindness. If we determine the banners are an issue, we could simply blank the templates. Or redesign them. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
I do want to note that I generally oppose More Banners because of banner blindness. My support here is more a support for improving the status quo. I haven't considered whether it's necessary to rock the boat here. Izno ( talk) 19:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Designation of contentious topics

Proposal summary
  • Change "authorisation" to "designation" of contentious topics
  • Minor tweaks to how conflicts between wordings are handled
Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Contentious topics may be designated either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by Arbitration Committee motion. When it becomes apparent that a particular contentious topic designation is no longer necessary, the Committee may rescind it. Any editor may request that the Committee review a contentious topic designation by submitting a request for amendment ("ARCA"). Unless the Committee specifies otherwise, after rescinding a designation, all restrictions previously-issued under that designation remain in force and continue to be governed by the contentious topics procedure.

Vote (Designation)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Beeblebrox what about the last sentence are you not sure about? Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    The way I'm reading it, if the committee rescinds a designation, it doesn't actually change anything. All restrictions remain in force and subject to CT procedures. I feel like I'm missing something here that was apparently obvious to everyone else. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    No you have it right. It's just that has been our standard way of doing things when repealing DS. So if an editor was under a TBAN because of DS and we repeal the DS the TBAN remains though presumably they owuld have an easier chance of successfully appealing it. An example of this language being used before in motions you supported is here. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    I should add that, importantly for me, page protections which are far more likely to have ongoing effects after a repeal now have an easier way of being modified. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    That was actually my main thought, that a page could be under EC protection, which is very restrictive, solely because it used to be under the CT regime and nobody wants to touch it because of that. That feels like a less than optimal result to me. However, I also have to acknowledge that I have come into this process very late and to be perfectly honest, although I feel reforming it is a priority and I am exceedingly grateful to those of you who undertook this and got it this far, I've found it so dry and boring that I probably am not as familiar with how it works as I should be, so I'll just stay at an abstain as it won't change the result. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Logging

Proposal summary

Reducing and simplifying the language around logging

Consultation rationale and comments
Language

Contentious topic restrictions must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action. [t] Administrators who renew, change, or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.

Administrators should clearly and unambiguously label their actions as contentious topic restrictions (such as in the block summary, page protection summary, edit summary, or talk page message announcing the action, whichever is appropriate). [u]

Vote (Logging)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
Per @ Nosebagbear's comment on the talk page I'd love to see a script (or bot) make logging easier. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Indeed. If only someone were enterprising enough for it. -- Izno ( talk) 18:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I would love a log script. Its a real pain to do it manually. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Continuity

Proposal summary

Establishes transition rules from discretionary sanctions to contentious topics.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Any restrictions imposed under the prior discretionary sanctions procedure to date remain in force. Any changes to or appeals regarding previously-imposed restrictions will be governed by the current contentious topics procedure, subject to the following transitional rules:

  • Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions are now subject to renewal, modification, and revocation by uninvolved administrators in accordance with #Page restrictions.
  • Previously-enacted single-admin editor restrictions do not, as a result of #Editor restrictions, lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions" after one year.

Vote (Continuity)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. WormTT( talk) 11:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. BDD ( talk) 16:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. I appreciate the page restriction transition as someone who still hasn't finished his review of old indefinite move protections. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. I think this is absolutely the right way to handle that difference. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
The rationale for the difference in treatment for individual vs. page restrictions is that page restrictions can be reimposed at any point and one of the main purposes of the one-year rule is allowing admins to clean up old page restrictions when they're no longer necessary but nobody is incentivized to put in the effort to go through the whole AE process to repeal them. Whereas individual restrictions can't just be reimposed and also don't suffer from that problem. I could be convinced to apply the new rules to individual restrictions, though. The language right now is pretty clunky. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Administrators' role and expectations

Proposal summary

Reducing and simplifying the language

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics. Administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum. Before imposing a contentious topic restriction, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project.

While contentious topic restrictions give administrators necessary latitude, administrators must not:

  1. impose a restriction when involved;
  2. modify a restriction out of process;
  3. repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions;
  4. repeatedly fail to log restriction or page restrictions; or
  5. repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate restriction or issue a grossly disproportionate restriction.

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

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.

Administrator expectations

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Expectations of administrators. In addition to the expectations specific to contentious topic restrictions above, the following expectations apply to all enforcement decisions:
Adopted on 21 April 2017

Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions; and they must not be involved. Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement.

Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal. However, they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist in reaching a determination.

Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions to be imposed for violations of a final decision, the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction. Conversely, editors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly.

Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. However, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement.

When a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request.

Vote (Administrators' role and expectations)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 15:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

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.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content
Noticeboard scope
If adopted this section would be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures and transcluded here similarly to "Dismissing an enforcement request" below

The arbitration enforcement noticeboard may consider:

  • requests for administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction [LINK] imposed by an administrator,
  • requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors [LINK] who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic [LINK],
  • requests for page restrictions [LINK] (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in contentious topics,
  • appeals against arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions), or
  • requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.

For all other matters, including content disagreements or the enforcement of other community-imposed sanctions, editors should use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal decisions made directly by the Arbitration Committee, editors should submit a request for clarification or amendment.

Noticeboard outcomes

Requests and appeals at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may not be closed with a "rough consensus" or "clear consensus" outcome without at least 24 hours of discussion.

Sample language for community use of the AE noticeboard
This is sample language for how the community would assign GS enforcement functions to the AE noticeboard.
Proposal (lightweight)

I propose that the AE noticeboard be a venue for enforcement requests and appeals for the community-imposed general sanctions currently in effect for professional wrestling.

Proposal (detailed)

I propose that the community-imposed general sanctions currently in effect for professional wrestling be amended to read as follows:

Old (to be replaced)

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

New (to be enacted)

  • The community designates professional wrestling as a community-designated contentious topic. Uninvolved administrators may take enforcement actions in the area of conflict as specified in the contentious topics procedure.
  • Enforcement requests and appeals may be heard at the AE noticeboard consistent with the contentious topics procedure.


Vote (AE noticeboard)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 09:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. BDD ( talk) 19:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
  • Can the sample language incorporate a binary choice about whether or not the community wants amendments to CT/AT by ArbCom to automatically be incorporated into its restrictions? This way there's no guessing when this happens. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: removing community scope

Amend the previous proposal by striking the last bullet point of "Noticeboard scope".

Support
  1. I appear to be one of the few here. My concern with mixing the use of this noticeboard directly is that it will inevitably confuse who has authority and where, something I know some of the users in the oppose pile are now being inconsistent with regarding previous discussions. Using the same style of enforcement request noticeboard also does not fundamentally require that the community use what is now AE, only that they have a place to enforce their own decision making. The community can set that up at their leisure, and it is honestly surprising to me that it has been unable to given the support for it. Izno ( talk) 22:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. We've received several requests to "take over" community-authorized discretionary sanctions over the years. We've also heard feedback during Consultation I that the AE venue is one of the best features of DS. If we're willing to take over DS authorizations just to allow folks to use AE, then we should just allow the community to authorize the use of AE for its CT equivalents. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. One goal I have for this review is harmonizing the DS/GS divide, and making it easy for the community to bootstrap the committee procedures helps keep them aligned. Disallowing the use of AE for community-authorized sanctions means a separate policy with AE removed must be maintained which is bad. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. The community has asked for a way to use AE at several points including the consultation and draft review. I am excited that this is happening. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. per my colleagues WormTT( talk) 09:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. BDD ( talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 13:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. To me, this is a major innovation that I think will have a very positive outcome. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. I feel that this is something we were asked to do by the community, so we should do it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Sufficiency of other actions

Proposal summary

Reaffirms existing practice

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Before imposing a delegated enforcement action, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project.

Vote (Sufficiency of other actions)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 09:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. BDD ( talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. This is an important one for me. Just because something is in a CT/AT area doesn't mean that CT/AT needs to be used when an admin action is taken. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Keep as close to the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" ideal as possible, Cabayi ( talk) 13:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Enforcement templates and procedural documents

Proposal summary

Authorizes arbitrators and clerks, after consulting ArbCom, to update and maintain AE templates and docs, including for CT (e.g. alert templates, editnotices, case-specific pages)

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
If adopted this section would be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures.

Arbitrators and arbitration clerks may, after consultation with the Arbitration Committee, update and maintain templates and procedural documents related to arbitration enforcement processes (including the contentious topics system).

Vote (Enforcement templates and procedural documents)

Support
  1. I think this proposal may actually lead to some of the most important improvements to the system. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 19:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Making this less onerous is a good thing WormTT( talk) 10:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. BDD ( talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 13:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. I agree with Kevin: giving our Clerks the ability to amend the templates is quite impactful, as it is what most editors interact with on a daily basis. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Arbitration enforcement log

Proposal summary

Strikes detailed implementation-level language from the procedure establishing the arbitration enforcement log.

Language

The last paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Logging is amended to read as follows:

A central log ("log") of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including discretionary sanctions contentious topic restrictions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/2015], [/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by case. An annual log sub-page shall be untranscluded from the main log page (but not blanked) once five years have elapsed since the date of the last entry (including sanctions and appeals) recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Once all sanctions recorded on the page have expired or been successfully appealed, the log page shall be blanked. The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee.

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 19:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Procedure vs Policy WormTT( talk) 10:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. BDD ( talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 13:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
This would remove implementation-level details from the official binding procedure so that those details can be managed under the previous proposal (by [a]rbitrators and arbitration clerks [], after consultation with the Arbitration Committee). For example, we recently received a request from LaundryPizza03 asking us to reduce the number of years shown on the main page. I haven't given the number of years of archive to show much thought, but I think those kinds of details should not require codification in the main Committee procedure, subject to change only by changing the formal procedure. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
By the way, I've stricken the ("log") from the text as superfluous, and changed "discretionary sanctions" to "contentious topic restrictions". Ping to @ Izno, Maxim, and Worm That Turned:, who have already voted – please revert if you disagree. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 12:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm OK with the change. Maxim(talk) 13:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, that makes sense. WormTT( talk) 13:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Decorum

Proposal summary

Retains the "Decorum" section verbatim.

Consultation rationale and comments
  • Not in the original consultation because there were no changes from the original DS procedure.
Language
Extended content
Decorum

Certain pages (including the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), and the Arbitration Committee's requests for amendment ("ARCA")) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of individual and page restrictions. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement with parties (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted, and may remove statements or restrict or block editors to address inappropriate conduct.

Vote (Decorum)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 19:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. WormTT( talk) 10:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. BDD ( talk) 19:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 13:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Administrative provisions

Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.

Vote (Administrative provisions)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. I understand this to mean DS is superseded by CT, and anything referring to DS in the past now refers to CT. This can largely be done with redirects, but should be clearer on case pages. WormTT( talk) 10:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. BDD ( talk) 19:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I can see this as a useful belt to the overall suspenders of the general implementation. Primefac ( talk) 12:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. I have the same reading as WTT — Wug· a·po·des​ 05:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Cabayi ( talk) 13:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. As clarified by L235 below. Izno ( talk) 23:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
When we say "each reference", what do we mean? Every single one by every user ever? Or is this intended to be more limited? Izno ( talk) 19:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the intent is that CT is the successor to DS and past references to DS (wherever found) should be treated as references to CT in the future. How about this? The contentious topics procedure is the successor to the discretionary sanctions procedure, and each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. Additionally, the arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics. Not sure if that's any clearer. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
What does this do that the implementing motion does not? I have an idea but want to make sure I understand before voting. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I am not strictly opposed to this motion, but I would like to know the answer to this question before making a final decision. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
It's possible that this is superfluous given the passage of the continuity section and motion to close. The intent behind the first sentence is to treat CT as the successor to DS in all respects. The purpose of the second sentence is to make it explicit that the text of the remedies will be changed (they won't keep the same text and just be interpreted differently in the future – that would be pretty user-unfriendly). I expect that when we amend all the old cases, this motion will be linked as the authority for doing so in the "Amended by motion at DATE" italic postscript. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That doesn't clarify. Who is that shall being levied on? All users? All administrators? All references internal to the ArbCom body of policy and procedure? Izno ( talk) 22:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Ah, I understand your question now. The intent is to capture at least all references to DS in any setting that binds users: for example, ArbProc and policy references to DS (such as WP:BANAUTH) but also any community decisions, etc. That's hard to capture in a short phrase – "Each reference in Wikipedia policy to the prior [...]" would really miss a broad swath of the applicable things. And the "shall" applies to everyone to whom the contentious topic procedure applies. ( This isn't a unique construction, but it does seem to be used in legal settings, so I'm happy to find other wording if more clear.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Here's another example out "in the wild" that I stumbled across but probably wouldn't have systematically caught: WP:APLECP says Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area. After the procedural change, this should be read as "Eastern Europe or the Balkans" remains a contentious topic, as designated in the Eastern Europe arbitration case. Making this change would be authorized by the motion to close, but we might well miss it by accident. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Ok, I mostly needed that clarification. I am not totally sure if the current sentence is sufficient, but I agree it is awkward otherwise. Izno ( talk) 23:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee

Proposal summary

Allows a consensus of administrators at AE to refer cases "in unusual circumstances" to the full Committee for decision.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language

If a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard determines that unusual circumstances prevent the arbitration enforcement process from reaching a successful outcome, it may refer the enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through a request for amendment.

Vote (Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Had to sit on this for a while. I think that this will add to the ArbCom's Pile of Quickly Resolvable Things, but I think preventing "harassment" as it was framed at the consultation weighs heavier. Izno ( talk) 19:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. WormTT( talk) 10:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. BDD ( talk) 19:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Second choice to Barkeep's alternative below, per Kevin's 27 Nov comment in that discussion section. — Wug· a·po·des​ 06:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Cabayi ( talk) 13:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Second choice to the alt. Primefac ( talk) 20:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Second choice. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. For reasons I support the alt below. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Prefer the alt. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee alt

Language

A consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may refer an arbitration enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through a request for amendment.

Vote (Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee alt)

Support
  1. I think this is more in-line with the feedback we got during the consultation which led to its creation in the first place. I prefer this version to the one above because I don't know what unusual circumstances mean and would prefer ArbCom to not have to say "this isn't unusual AE admins try again". By setting it to a consensus, rather than the normal rough consensus for AE outcomes, it will automatically mean it's a bit unusual. The comment against this when I threw it out to the committee is that we're ineffecient at ARCA. That is true. I would say two things in response: first I think we should be more efficient at ARCA and have suggested a way to do so. Second AE admins know darn well what ARCA is like and so I would trust them to make the determination in the moment. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Equal support with the bump up from rough. Izno ( talk) 22:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Per Barkeep, I prefer a higher bar for referrals than regular actions. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. This is simpler, and easier to implement. Rough consensus is a useful standard that we're implementing here, but I'm not sure it is as useful when it comes to Committee referrals. ArbCom just doesn't need to handle most AE items, and we're ultimately not super good at it. It still could be useful, and I think we should keep the option, but the bar needs to be higher. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 10:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Prefer this version. Maxim(talk) 19:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Cabayi ( talk) 11:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. First choice. Primefac ( talk) 20:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Second choice. I still prefer the initial version, but don't oppose this one. -- BDD ( talk) 21:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. I think the consultation feedback is very helpful, which is why this proposal is here, but it is ultimately advisory. We are in a better position to know what works well at ARCA than the average community member who understandably does not need to follow ARCA closely, and we should apply that knowledge. "Unusual circumstances" is already watered down from "extraordinary circumstances", and I don't want it watered down further. Ultimately, I see the "unusual circumstances" text as useful advice for AE admins on when to use this ability. I therefore respectfully oppose. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't think our internal discussion intended to water it down (or at least I didn't), we wanted extraordinary defined. Izno ( talk) 22:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    It's hard to further define "unusual" or "extraordinary" without enumerating all the exact cases, which is impractical here. In context, the phrase is unusual circumstances [that] prevent the arbitration enforcement process from reaching a successful outcome, which I hope has meaning. Happy to expand on my thoughts but if arbs are convinced this is better I will let this disagreement go – this is a more minor disagreement. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
Ultimately the exact proposal isn't a huge deal to me, but nitpicky Kevin has a significant concern with the consensus wording here. I have no problem bumping up the level of consensus (from "rough consensus") and would be happy to modify the other proposal to do so, but I don't like saying just "consensus" – that creates essentially three levels of consensus in this procedure (rough consensus, clear consensus, and just plain consensus), even though rough consensus and clear consensus are supposed to be subtypes of consensus and not distinct from the idea of consensus. It's not immediately obvious to a reader that the order should be clear consensus > "consensus" > rough consensus, or that the latter two are supposed to be different levels – adding in just plain consensus is likely to cause significant interpretive confusion. I would advocate for using either rough consensus or clear consensus. I don't think bumping up the level of consensus needs to be accompanied by dropping the "unusual circumstances prevent the arbitration enforcement process from reaching a successful outcome" guidance. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Barkeep49, would you be opposed to having the alt say "clear consensus"? Primefac ( talk) 10:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
It's definitely not my preference. I think it would absolutely be understood that "rough consensus" requires less than of consensus and consensus requires less than clear consensus. Consensus is an entire policy and is a word that we (ArbCom) use all the time. I count 180 instances of it in our archived principles and 1 of clear consensus. This idea that consensus is a term that would be hard for AE admin or future committees to understand just doesn't strike me as likely. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Notes

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ Editors should exercise caution before re-alerting an editor to the same contentious topic as a previous alert, as there is a presumption that an editor remains aware.
  3. ^ Edits made before an editor was aware of a contentious topic designation may still be considered as part of a pattern of behavior in future enforcement processes if those processes primarily concern post-awareness conduct.
  4. ^ An editor who has not received an alert may also be presumed to be aware of a contentious topic if the editor:
    • Was mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision;
    • Was ever restricted or formally warned within the contentious topic;
    • Ever alerted another editor to the contentious topic;
    • Ever received a discretionary sanctions alert ({{ ds/alert}}) for the same topic;
    • Ever participated in any process relating to the contentious topic (such as a request or appeal at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), or an Arbitration Committee process page ( requests for arbitration and subpages);
    • Has placed a {{ Ct/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or
    • Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
  5. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
  6. ^ This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.
  7. ^ On pages where "consensus required" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.
  8. ^ On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until (a) the editor posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) the edit waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
  9. ^ This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.
  10. ^ On pages where "consensus required" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.
  11. ^ On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until (a) the editor posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) the edit waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
  12. ^ This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.
  13. ^ On pages where "consensus required" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.
  14. ^ On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
  15. ^ On pages where "consensus required" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.
  16. ^ On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until (a) the editor posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) the edit waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
  17. ^ Other administrators may log the contentious topic restriction on behalf of the original administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".
  18. ^ If an enforcing administrator clearly intends to impose a contentious topic restrictions but forgets to label their action, other administrators may label the action (such as through a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".
  19. ^ An uninvolved administrator who enforces a restriction by reversion is performing an administrative action and does not thereby become involved for administrative purposes.
  20. ^ Other administrators may log the contentious topic restriction on behalf of the original administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".
  21. ^ If an enforcing administrator clearly intends to impose a contentious topic restrictions but forgets to label their action, other administrators may label the action (such as through a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Izno ( talk) 22:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Name 10 0 1 Passing · 3 first choice and 1 second choice to below
Amendment: Arbitrated topics 5 5 1 Cannot pass Cannot pass 1 first choice and 3 second choice to above. As the above passes, the second choices for this motion become opposes which leads to a majority oppose.
Nutshell 11 0 1 Passing ·
Lead section 11 0 1 Passing ·
Awareness 11 0 1 Passing ·
Amendment: removing bot prohibition 3 8 1 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Appeals and amendments 11 0 1 Passing ·
Amendment: Appeal timeframe 9 1 1 Passing ·
Amendment: earlier stages preferred 1 9 1 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Amendment: earlier stages preferred (2) 4 4 4 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Amendment: appeal template 9 1 2 Passing ·
Amendment: Allow a priori consent 8 1 2 Passing ·
Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use 11 0 1 Passing ·
Amendment: Limiting blocks to one year 6 5 1 Passing ·
Amendment: wording of duration language 3 0 1 Cannot pass Cannot pass Withdrawn
Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions 11 0 1 Passing ·
Enforcement 11 0 1 Passing ·
Warnings 11 0 1 Passing ·
Administrator instructions 11 0 1 Passing ·
Contentious topic subpages 11 0 1 Passing ·
Editnotices and talk page notices 11 0 1 Passing ·
Designation of contentious topics 10 0 2 Passing ·
Logging 11 0 1 Passing ·
Continuity 11 0 1 Passing ·
Administrators' role and expectations 11 0 1 Passing ·
AE noticeboard 11 0 1 Passing ·
Amendment: removing community scope 1 10 1 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Sufficiency of other actions 11 0 1 Passing ·
Enforcement templates and procedural documents 11 0 1 Passing ·
Arbitration enforcement log 11 0 1 Passing ·
Decorum 11 0 1 Passing ·
Administrative provisions 10 0 1 Passing ·
Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee 5 2 1 Currently not passing 1 Three 2nd choices to alt (not included in the count to avoid marking the motion as passing), which is considered opposes as the one below currently passes.
Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee alt 10 1 1 Passing ·
Motion to close 6 0 1 Passing ·
Notes

I have marked Enterprisey as inactive based on a comment he made privately. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Motion to close

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Vote (motion to close)

Support
  1. I think we're done here? A big thanks to everyone in the community for their help with this massive undertaking. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Maxim(talk) 00:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Izno ( talk) 02:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. With deep appreciation for everyone who made this possible, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. As above. Primefac ( talk) 08:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Temporarily, while we wait for #Amendment: earlier stages preferred (2) to either pass or fail. @ Wugapodes: it's all down to you – no pressure KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Moving to support. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
I'm thinking of adding "In doing so, the drafting arbitrators may make clarifying changes to the procedure provided that those changes are not objected to by an arbitrator." at the end of the first paragraph. We've been making clarifying/wording changes to the proposals well past the five-day period and I would like to be able to start voting while keeping the security of knowing that we can continue make clarifying changes if needed. Would there be any objections? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC) reply
We often make changes to motions when voting is open why is this different? Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I agree with Barkeep here. If we need ad hoc changes, the specific proposal can take them. :) Izno ( talk) 19:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The intent here was to allow minor uncontroversial clarifications after voting concludes when doing the implementation work, when points of clarification are most likely to surface. Since any arb can object, these will be minor changes. However, if this is a problem I'm definitely not wedded to it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Can we put some sort of time limit on the drafters ability to implement? I worry about unintended consequences from such an indefinite grant. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That seems reasonable. How about for one month after enactment? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That seems reasonable to me. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I'd just like to thank the arbitrators who have put so much effort into this. There's been a lot of review, community consultation, consideration and feedback and it's taken well over a year. I'm sure at more than one point it has pushed our arbitrators to the limit, so to each of them involved in this process (you know who you are), I want to express my sincere gratitude. Thank you. WormTT( talk) 10:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I second this big thank you. Maxim(talk) 00:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Just a note that while we're technically at a majority to close this, L235 is going to be semi-active for a few days and I expect we're going to wait to close it formally until he's around to help lead implementation. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/2021-22_review/Proposed_decision&oldid=1133682702"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status as of 00:53 (UTC), Sunday, 28 April 2024 ( Purge)

The revision process will be conducted in four phases:

  1. Phase I community consultation (March – April 2021) (closed)
  2. Phase II community consultation (September – October 2022) (closed)
  3. Proposed decision (November – December 2022)
  4. Implementation: The drafting arbitrators will implement the Committee's decision in conjunction with the Committee's clerks and interested volunteers designated by the Committee.

The revision process was managed by drafting arbitrators designated by the Arbitration Committee ( CaptainEek, L235, Wugapodes).

On this page, arbitrators will consider proposals for the outcome of the review process. After all the proposals have been voted on, the process will conclude with a motion to close.

Comments are welcome on the talk page. The proposed decision will be posted for five days of community review and comment before arbitrators vote on the proposals in order to allow the Committee to receive suggestions for stylistic or typographical amendment.

For these motions there are 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

Name

Proposal summary

The discretionary sanctions (DS) system will be renamed "contentious topics" (CT), and restrictions placed within the DS system will be referred to as "contentious topic restrictions".

Consultation rationale and comments
Language

The language in subsequent proposals reflects the "contentious topics" and "contentious topic restrictions" language. In the event that an alternative name proposal is passed, the wording will be substituted as appropriate.

Vote (Name)

Support
  1. I support a change for the reasons given at the consultation under "Rationale". I think contentious topics is a better name than arbitrated topics because arbitrated topics creates extra ambiguity with the community GS version of this system. I think I could still be convinced to support a name like "heightened scrutiny topics" but I think contentious topics is (1) better than DS and (2) has reasonably high support. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Reasons to oppose the current Other suggestion should probably be in the context of the other suggestion so people who support Another Name don't have to discuss it in two different places. This proposal is only discussing whether 1) to change the name and 2) whether to change the name to CT. Anyway, regarding your creates extra ambiguity with the community GS version of this system, I don't see how. At all. Is "ambiguity" actually the word you intended? I would levy contentious topics as a far worse offender on the point if indeed you mean "ambiguity", categorically. Izno ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. A name change is in the cards. Izno ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Second choice (at least among the current two we're considering). -- BDD ( talk) 01:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. First choice. A new name is a must for me and I think this is slightly better than AT. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Only choice, although I can still live with the status quo of "discretionary sanctions". Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. First choice. I prefer this to DS, and Arbitrated topics. WormTT( talk) 14:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. First choice — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 12:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. A name change is long overdue. "Discretionary sanctions" was esoteric and arcane, and did not tell the average editor what it meant. While I understand "Contentious Topic" in and of itself is a term of art, it is the clearest, most simple term we imagined. I don't like Arbitrated topics because it is simply not evident at a glance what that means. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. There are so many things on this project that got named years ago and the name doesn't really fit with the process but we seem to be stuck with it (I don't personally think "Arbitration" is actually what the committee does at all, but I'm not even going to try and fix that) and I've always felt "discretionary sanctions" was vague and somewhat intimidating. We're trying to get people to understand that when they show up in one of these topic areas, they are not the first, and will not be the last, who are there to Right Great Wrongs. "Contentious topics" expresses that much better than "discretionary sanctions." Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
The name is something I'm still having trouble with, and I think a number of arbs are still thinking through. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Also, another open question is whether Contentious Topic Restrictions should be capitalized or not – the draft currently does not title-case it, Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply
You might think that because I am replying to this comment that I care, even just a little, about whether or not we capitalize "Contentious Topic Restrictions" but you would be wrong. Whatever our grammar mavens in the community and on the committee prefer is great by me. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I continue to think that if we go with this term, it should be capitalized unless we mean the more general sense of topics which are contentious. That may be a reason to prefer the alternative. -- BDD ( talk) 16:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC
Whether it is capitalized or not, it will become a term of art and it will used in the lowercase. This is another reason I oppose the name contentious topics and why I think you should also. Izno ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Per this comment, I've changed "individual restriction" to "editor restriction" to hopefully make it more clear. It's a bigger change, so if an arb disagrees I'll revert it and start a separate amendment vote. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but I have not felt engaged in this process. I am abstaining on each question to make it easier for the committee to find a consensus. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: Arbitrated topics

In place of "contentious topics", the new name will be "arbitrated topics", and the text of all the proposals will reflect that new name.

Support

  1. As discussed at the most recent consultation in addition to the talk page of this decision, I firmly believe that contentious topics as a name will become a term of art comparable to notability and everyone voting in this decision knows how bad that was (we've had two decades of arguing with people who don't understand how Wikipedia's notability isn't the rest of the world's). Contentious topic will do the same, and be more likely, not less, to confuse editors new to editing, and new to editing about both contentious topics and contentious topics, and may indeed (as mentioned at this PD's talk page) lead to support for more, not fewer, restricted topics as people misjudge contentious topics to merit contentious topic restrictions simply due to the area of interest. That's bad. If we're going to make a term of art, and we have to do that regardless of whether we want to or not, it should be a term of art that is sufficiently plain English that you can ferret out what's going on, but insufficiently plain English to overrun the common use of the name we end up picking. Contentious topic falls in the too plain pile for me.

    I am happy to discuss or support other terms of course, but over several weeks nothing seems to have grabbed anyone's happiness, and the discussion that should have happened on the point between arbitrators basically hasn't. -- Izno ( talk) 18:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  2. First choice. Consider me convinced. While terms of art may be unavoidable in some circumstances, the cardinal sin of "discretionary sanctions" was the lack of information it conveyed, whereas "arbitrated topics" does very well in the regard. -- BDD ( talk) 01:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Second choice. A new name is a must for me and I think this is slightly worse than CT. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Second choice. WormTT( talk) 14:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Second choice. Agree with Izno that the alternative is likely to become a term of art, but at least the term is more transparent than the original. I think "arbitrated topics" is likely also to become a term of art in that "arbitrated" is not particularly transparent to those unfamiliar with the committee, especially since it will be administered by non-arbitrators. It also doesn't have the benefit of being exdtensible to the GS regime. The community can theoretically apply "contentious topic restrictions" to anything it wants in the same way lots of GS bootstrap DS policy. But what would the community correlary to AT be? Community topics? I think either is fine, but slight preference for the alternative. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. It makes it sound like content decisions in a given topic are being done by arbitration. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. per Maxim's logic. Cabayi ( talk) 12:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. I prefer Contentious Topics per Wugapodes. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Per my vote on CT. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I understand the intent but I think CT is a more direct term and therefore easier for newcomers to understand. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
  • I'd like to suggest that arbitrators in this section supporting this name as a 2nd choice instead oppose the amendment, as this section means to modify the original proposal, not be a separate proposal to be enacted. It would do two things that I think are beneficial: 1) it makes it clear to clerks, and 2) it makes it obvious that this choice needs its own separate majority to the originating proposal for the remaining arbs who have not voted. Izno ( talk) 22:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Nutshell

Proposal summary

Clarify the "in a nutshell" box.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Contentious topics are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project. Administrators are allowed to impose editing restrictions on editors who do not follow project expectations within contentious topics. Administrators are also allowed to set special rules on pages within a contentious topic to prevent inappropriate editing.

Vote (Nutshell)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 01:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Cabayi ( talk) 14:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. One of the ways to make DS (AT/CT) more accessible for non-experts. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Primefac ( talk) 13:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. WormTT( talk) 14:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Lead section

Proposal summary

Add a lead section that describes the ArbCom contentious topics system and describes expectations of editors.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics (abbreviated CT). These are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. [a] Not all topics that are controversial have been designated as contentious topics – this procedure applies only to those topics designated by the Arbitration Committee ( list). When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project.

Editing a contentious topic

Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

You should err on the side of caution if you are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations.

Within contentious topics, administrators have the ability to set editor restrictions (restrictions on editing by particular editors) and page restrictions (special rules on how particular pages can be edited). Some of these abilities may be exercised by a single administrator while others require a consensus of administrators. All editor and page restrictions may be appealed.

Vote (Lead)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 01:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Cabayi ( talk) 14:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I think this makes the topic understandable to a wide range of editors in a way that's very important to me. I consider this LEAD to be policy as much as the text that follows, not just a summary as we would expect in an article. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Primefac ( talk) 13:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. WormTT( talk) 14:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Awareness

Proposal summary

The current awareness criteria are replaced with an appealable presumption of awareness following an initial alert. The use of the standard template alert becomes optional after a user's first alert.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using [CT/TOPICNOTICE] template. Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert, and these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee. When alerting an editor who has previously received any contentious topic alert, the [LINK] template may be used, but any message that conveys the contentious topic designation is acceptable. [b]

If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing a designating contentious topic when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) should be imposed. [c] Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware but may attempt to refute this presumption on appeal. [d]

Draft template language

Edits to the templates may be approved by the clerks following consultation with the Arbitration Committee.

First-time CT alert recipients

You have recently made edits related to [CT code], which is a designated contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. 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. When editing a designated contentious topic ( full list), Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

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, which are described in editnotices on affected pages; and
refrain from gaming the system.

You should err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic [LINK TO TOPIC-SPECIFIC CT PAGE]. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ct/aware}} template.

CT alert templates for those previously alerted to DS

Information icon You have recently made edits related to [CT code]. This is a standard message to inform you that [CT code] is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see [LINK]. [MAYBE: For a summary of the differences between discretionary sanctions and contentious topics, see WP:CTVSDS].]

Subsequent CT alert templates

Information icon You have recently made edits related to [CT code]. This is a standard message to inform you that [CT code] is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see [LINK].

Vote (Awareness)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Cabayi ( talk) 14:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. It would be unfair that an individual is sanctioned for something they were not aware about, but I feel the above is sufficient awareness requirement and has a refutation option WormTT( talk) 14:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. I find this much preferable to the "well I guess I get my annual DS notice for XYZ today" yearly requirement that currently exists. Primefac ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Per Primefac. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. Awareness should not be so bureaucratic. This is a step in the right direction. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. The alert/awareness system has long been one of the most needlessly over-complicated things on WP. This is surely a step in the right direction. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
One outstanding question is whether information currently found in the notes should be moved into the body of the text. I am leaning toward keeping it as is but think I could still be convinced. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Clarified that the footnote criteria are independently valid ways to be aware, per @ Vanamonde93's comment. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I've changed these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing. to these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee. per the discussion below. Please revert if you disagree. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I do disagree but I'm not prepared to revert because that feels like a large reaction to something this small. The reason I disagree is that it feels like we're adding "wikilaw" for something no one has asked for. This runs counter to the overall simplification goal. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks to Procrastinating Reader who pointed out on the talk page a 2018 RfC which absent an ArbCom motion feels like it would have gained consensus. That said I think that discussion does show the difficulties any bot oriented proposal will take. However, the past demand is enough for me to not care so much about the particular bold change Kevin did. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: removing bot prohibition

Amend the previous proposal by striking the following: and these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing.

Support
  1. Awareness should be a mere statement of fact. A bot which hands out the templates impartially is inherently less confrontational/adversarial than having another editor place the template. Cabayi ( talk) 14:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Speaking while holding my BAG hat in hand, bot requests are not approved until there is a clear plan and a consensus that the task should be run; a user with a plan still needs to have community consensus before filing a BRFA, especially if it is a task for automated notification such as this. If we do not strike this prohibition, then any proposal to create a bot-assisted notification system would need a willing bot operator with a plan, consensus from the community, and a motion from a future ArbCom to strike the prohibition. If we strike this prohibition, the only step that is not being taken is the final one; would a future ArbCom decline to strike this prohibition if there was community consensus that a bot to deliver notifications was acceptable? I cannot think of a reason for them to do so.
    In other words, I do see Izno's point, and largely agree with it, but that particular "needle" will be threaded either way, and this saves a future Committee time and effort. This is not necessarily a hill I feel a strong need to defend, though. Primefac ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. I support Kevin's amended wording. If someone wishes to make a bot, I'd be excited, but they will need to work with the Arbs. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. I don't think I can support removing this prohibition without also making it clear what an automated system would be required to do to deliver alerts. At a minimum, the name of an editor must be associated with each specific notice so as to prevent abuse. It doesn't need to be in the text of the talk page as delivered, but I think that requirement still makes it difficult to see a benefit of allowing bot or semi-automated editing that some espouse (namely, that people think these can be "revenge"-driven). Maybe others can think of other requirements or other ways to thread the needle; I'd be happy to see an amendment laying out some of those requirements. Izno ( talk) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Izno. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. A bot would lack nuance. Do minor AWB edits—think of a simple, unambiguous typo fix like tpyo->typo—really merit an awareness notice? Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. To be clear, I support bot notificaiton - however, I do not feel this should be achieved by simply removing the text. I'd rather an actual plan for how bot notification should work was put in. WormTT( talk) 10:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I do ultimately think bots should be able to do this, but see the merits of having a plan first. We should also consider whether to disentangle bot and automated editing in this regard. -- BDD ( talk) 15:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. I see Primefac's point, but ultimately I think the implementation of a bot should be subject to primarily committee oversight. Striking this line essentially means BAG gets the final say on how the bot runs, but given the issues at stake, I don't think BAG is structured in a way that makes me comfortable delegating. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Count me as a vote for "yes, someone can propose a bot, but ask us first". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 12:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    One possible compromise is and these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 12:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. I am also not opposed to the very idea of a bot doing this, but I do support the idea that both the committee and BAG need to be on board with it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
  • Cabayi's argument seems convincing. Could we lift this prohibition and leave it for a later bot request to refine the parameters? Perhaps that doesn't answer the point about non-bot automated editing. -- BDD ( talk) 22:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'd personally rather prohibit until someone comes up with the set of requirements. This is something sufficiently severable from the rest of the procedure that I anticipate a future ArbCom could look at a proposed bot in relative isolation at A/R/M if the community proposed the specific requirements or if an ArbCom worked on the requirements itself. Izno ( talk) 22:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I agree with everything Izno wrote here except I would see it as eligible for proposal at ARCA. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I don't see anybody putting in the work on a bot task if it's prohibited by our ruling. The door needs to be eased open somehow, and this is the first step. Cabayi ( talk) 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Would adding "without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee" work to open the door? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'd be fine with adding that. I don't think I'm too worried about Cabayi's concern, but the additional clause does nothing to harm and probably saves time for someone in the future. There's always a wikihistorian available to point to the vote-taking and the fact that most of the opposition is along these lines, but that takes some time. Izno ( talk) 22:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Done. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Appeals and amendments

Proposal summary
  • Lowers the level of consensus required for a successful appeal from "clear and substantial consensus" to "clear consensus"
  • Provides clear standards of review on appeal
Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

  1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if:

  • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; [e]
  • The contentious topic restriction was imposed by a single administrator and it was imposed or last renewed more than a year ago; or
  • An appeal is successful (see below).

An appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

  • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
  • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
  • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review

On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

  1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
  3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

  1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
  3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

Vote (Appeals and amendments)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 10:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Primefac ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Amendment: Appeal timeframe

Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately before the "Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction" header:

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I agree with Izno below that this should not be generally the case, but if the user keeps coming back. WormTT( talk) 10:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Agree with WTT and Izno that "tendentious appeals" should be added in some way to the language to indicate it is a precursor for this sort of moratorium. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Support is conditional on a note or footnote, along the lines of what Izno indicated below, being added. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. The Committee occasionally takes this tactic, and I see no reason why the admins of AE shouldn't be able to either. I'm fine with a note pointing out that this shouldn't be general practice. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. This is clearly aimed at serial appellants and people who just can't seem to drop the stick, and that is exactly the sort of thing the committee is here to deal with. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. Unnecessary. This should not be used routinely, and should be saved only for people who are using the appeal system disruptively. If they are using the appeal system disruptively, they can be sanctioned as needed to stop the disruption under CT anyway. So our process can already do what we want, but the proposed change opens the door to misunderstandings that we could simply avoid by leaving this as something for admins to resolve through practice. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    The inspiration for this suggested amendment was actually an ARCA request from two weeks ago. While the new language removes the ban on banning appeals, I think I'd rather give the hint here that it may be a potential outcome, rather than relying solely on DS's "anything to ensure the good function of the wiki" which is retained in the new policy. Izno ( talk) 04:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    We could also bump this up from rough consensus to clear consensus if that would be better? Under the revised procedure, those two levels are different. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
We can also assign this ability to both AE and AN: A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Done. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I'd like a note here that says this should generally be used only to prevent users who have posted multiple specious appeals from continuing to appeal. -- Izno ( talk) 18:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I agree with Izno and suggest it be accomplished through a footnote. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
How's this wording for a note? This authority should generally be exercised only when a user has submitted multiple specious appeals.
I don't know how I feel in substance about this note. Is it fair for us to regularly impose 6-12 month no-appeal periods after a first appeal but require AE to wait for multiple specious appeals? I think I am generally happy deferring to the wisdom of AE admins, with an appeal to ARCA possible if the decision was truly egregious (constituting "an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion"). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I considered that practice of ours before voting in support. I am not sure what my logic was to support it anyway. And if the case is extraordinary, generally isn't applicable. (There's a part of me that says that any extraordinary cases probably won't continue to be able to edit instead as a resolution.)
This may be a point of potential improvement in the future if AE admins are finding that users are abusing the latitude we give them to appeal, but they already have that latitude and haven't particularly abused it. Additionally, as I recall saying elsewhere, we have fallbacks in the appeals system, one of which is now the addition of admins kicking it to ARCA spontaneously. Izno ( talk) 22:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I am personally happier with no note. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: earlier stages preferred

Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately after the numbered list describing the stages of appeal:

Earlier stages of this appeal process are significantly preferred to later stages.

Support
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
After some discussion and reflection, I might switch to an abstain or oppose on this amendment. I don't feel strongly that it should be included, and the structure of the section (and the differing standards of review at AE/AN and ARCA) already convey this to the extent that I'd like. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Moved to oppose. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Izno ( talk) 18:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  1. BDD ( talk) 02:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. WTT makes a compelling argument; I would support his wording or similar but agree that the current language is not overly clear. Primefac ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Per comment below. Barkeep49 ( talk)
  3. I would support WTT's wording. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Moving to oppose. I think the existing wording (under "Standard of review") makes it clear that it is harder to succeed at ARCA than at AE/AN, and that is as much as needs to be said on this point. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I'm fine explicitly opposing this. Izno ( talk) 23:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. WormTT( talk) 08:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 11:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
This is my attempt to capture the spirit of this comment, but I'm not tied to the wording. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't like the wording at all I'm afraid. "Preferred" and "earlier" don't make sense in my head, who's preference for example, and earlier implies time rather than numerically earlier. Could I suggest that we add something prior to the numbered list, like "An editor appealing a restriction may, in order of escalation,:"? Alternatively, "Editors should use the method with the least escalation unless there is a good reason not to"?
I don't oppose this wording I just.. don't like it. WormTT( talk) 11:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I agree with WTT though I don't love his wording. "Editors are typically expected to go through the stages in order" or "Outside of exceptional circumstances, editors are expected to go through the stages in order" are my 2 attempts. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I prefer that second one but either would be fine. The other thing I'm musing about is that this section kind of wants a link to the standards of review a couple sections down to help an editor make the decision in the context of where the options are presented, but that gets kind of clunky. Izno ( talk) 20:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Hm, I think "preferred" captures my thinking best – we prefer it but we won't force it. If we really just mean "Outside of exceptional circumstances, editors are expected to go through the stages in order", I don't think we need to codify it – the fact that we present it in these three stages says enough. (Also, the standards of review convey this message quite clearly: AE will reverse a sanction for a broader range of reasons than ARCA will.) I'm really quite indifferent as to whether we add this sentence, so I'm happy to let it be dropped. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: earlier stages preferred (2)

Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately after the numbered list describing the stages of appeal:

Outside of exceptional circumstances, editors are expected to go through the stages in order.

Support
  1. Izno ( talk) 23:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. I'd support this, but I'd also be fine with no text appearing at all. WormTT( talk) 08:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. As a statement of our preference & expectation, it's an innocuous statement. If you're reading it as a requirement (which I don't) I'd have to oppose. Cabayi ( talk) 11:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. I've pondered this and I don't think this accurately reflects how I think appeals should work. I don't think one should have to formally appeal to the enforcing admin before appealing at AE (for the same reason that we don't ask folks to appeal their blocks by pinging the blocking administrator and waiting for an answer before using {{ unblock}} – there's value in allowing for immediate independent review). And, I think the existing language specifying different standards of review at ARCA vs. AE/AN sufficiently warns people that they're probably going to be more successful at AE absent exceptional circumstances, as I wrote in my oppose for the previous amendment. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    And just to clarify my preference, my first choice is to have no note at all. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Cabayi: As written here, this certainly doesn't read as just as an unenforceable "preference & expectation". If we really do want it to be unenforceable guidance, I think that should be much more clear. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. This creates an unnecessary gate to appeal. Contacting the unblocking admin is a good start, but not always. What if that admin is no longer an admin? They're on a Wikibreak? They made a bad decision in the first place and are being obstinate about it? I don't think we have to mandate that as the first step. Now, editors can skip that step at their own risk I'd say, but I just don't see how demanding it be first helps. Nor is AE or AN always the second step. If the underlying decision was the result of some fundamental error of process, editors should be able to jump to ARCA. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Thinking about it more, it means that one would have to appeal to the enforcing admin first, and I can't fault someone for wanting a third party to review the sanction first or instead. Maxim(talk) 19:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. I feel like this just gives people who like to argue about nothing more nothing to argue about. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. I am fine with this text appearing, but similar to WTT I think I would prefer no text over this text. Primefac ( talk) 19:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 21:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. I'm fine with no text, and if I'm going to be the hammer vote on adopting this, I'd want some more agreement. As it stands, I don't think we're seeing eye-to-eye here and pushing this through seems ill advised given the opposition concerns. If we feel strongly about this we can work on it on its own and pass a motion that can get more of a consensus later. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
  • Proposed Barkeep's second suggestion from above, but if someone wants to express a preference for his first option in this context, I'm also fine with that text. Izno ( talk) 23:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: appeal template

Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately after the numbered list describing the stages of appeal:

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 02:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Primefac ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. The precise format of the template can be worked out later. In general, having a standardized format will make it easier to appeal and help prevent appeals becoming a mess. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 12:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. I understand Barkeep's concern but we can always modify the template. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. I'm opposed to sectioning the people whose opinions will be deciding the appeal. So at AE this is uninvolved Admin and at AN it's uninvolved editors. I strongly support having a template that is approprite to AN as a forum which our current template is not. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    In a sandbox, could you sketch what that might look like? I'm leery of approprite to AN as a forum. :) Izno ( talk) 20:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Barkeep49: The intent of this proposal was to bring the template under the jurisdiction of the arbs/clerks. I'm happy to commit to making uninvolved editor comments unsectioned at AN. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Izno my thought is that AN tends to have fewer sections for normal appeals - often just a single section. When someone posts the AE template it stands out at AN vs AE whose table of contents is formatted to support the templates. And AN tends to be a less sectioned venue than AE so it would follow, for me, that the template used there would have fewer overall sections as well. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    To everyone involved in this reform, AN is a mess, and I don't think we should take our cue from that mess. I can see removing some of what is in the current template, but not as much as I think you would prefer. Izno ( talk) 00:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Agree with Izno here. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
The template will hopefully be revised to be simpler to use once the clerks gain the authority to do so. The intent of this proposal is to explicitly require the template (and the 500-word limit) to be used at AN, per this comment. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: Allow a priori consent

Amend the previous proposal by inserting a note after "...the change,..." reading "The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction."

Support
  1. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. I'd prefer admins didn't do this as standard (because if you're working in these area I'd like you to be taking responsibility for the consequences of the additional power you have), but I can see circumstances that it is the right thing for an admin to do. WormTT( talk) 11:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. I can see downsides to this, but I can see this being useful on occasion if only to avoid the extra bureaucracy of needing to track down the original administrator. Primefac ( talk) 15:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Gave it a think; I see the "edge case" pointed out by Wugapodes happening more than any other detriment, but also to echo Barkeep49: if this becomes an issue ArbCom can quite easily fix it. Primefac ( talk) 13:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. BDD ( talk) 15:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I think this is worth trying. If it goes wrong it feels like a thing ArbCom would be able to fix fairly fast. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. A number of admins do this with regular admin actions, so I think this could be easily extended here to save time and energy. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. I'm not 100% sure this is a good idea, but the risk seems relatively low if it doesn't work in practice we can amend later. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. I've been sitting on this for a few days since I was not sure. I think where I go is an oppose here. Izno ( talk) 22:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
Pending resolution of my wording suggestion below. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Moved to support. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  1. I don't think this is a great idea, but there's an corner-case (that I'm only now realizing) where an admin thinks a user restriction is no longer needed but the imposing admin is away. Only the sanctioned user can appeal (so the admin cannot) but the admin can't modify the sanction without affirmative consent (which the absent admin can't give). So this is kinda needed, but I would prefer some other solution. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
I think there's a reasonable thing here but it strikes me as somewhat antithetical to DS to allow any admin to provide consent a priori, as noted by ToBeFree on the talk page. Izno ( talk) 22:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
How about "The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction."? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Done. Izno ( talk) 18:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Looking at this, I think I could maybe support with some sketch (note?) of good times to provide such consent. But when I look at some potential cases (help me out here DS admins or Arb colleagues), I can't see the upsides. All decisions? No, I don't think so. You're using the wrong administrative power if so. "I'll be away for a week" -> Are you really the right admin to enforce the decision (see also ADMINACCT)? Izno ( talk) 19:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I saw this as an admin being able to make a statement along the lines of "I am imposing this restriction, but any admin can overturn me if it is appealed." I do agree that it should not be used for every action by an admin, but I can see instances where it might be a borderline case or similar where the administering administrator sees it as some form of "weak" need. Primefac ( talk) 19:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
In the scenario of "if appealed", a consensus (AE/AN: admins/editors) can already override that original administrator's judgement. I don't think that gets me to "this is a necessary enhancement to the policies". Izno ( talk) 20:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
An appeal will happen one way or another, but if the imposing admin is unable to give consent to modify, a consensus of admins must be found. If the admin has already given a priori consent, any admin can modify the restriction without needing a group consensus. You and Wugapodes have raised some good points, though, so I will give this another think and see how I feel about it. Primefac ( talk) 09:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
For those opposing because you think an admin shouldn't be able to consent ahead of time, if this doesn't pass, I'd encourage you to write a separate proposal prohibiting that. Even without this amendment, it isn't clear that it's not allowed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I'd personally rather ping all the arbs onlist or elsewhere to tell them to come vote, which might moot the question thereby saving myself time and getting this proposed decision done, since I am the lone actual opposition on this one at this time. ;) It's been public for a couple weeks now and voting-able for over a week at this point. Izno ( talk) 23:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use

Proposal summary
  • Individual administrators now have access to a standard set of page and editor restrictions to enact, plus any that are designated for a particular topic area.
  • Some abilities are now restricted to use by a rough consensus of administrators at AE:
    • Taking actions outside the "standard set" of restrictions
    • Imposing restrictions that can't be reversed by any administrator for longer than one year (but page restrictions can be renewed)
Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content
Contentious topic restrictions (level 2 header)

Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions in contentious topic areas. Those contentious topic restrictions take the form of editor restrictions and page restrictions. Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. [f]

Editor restrictions

Administrators may impose restrictions on individual editors ("editor restrictions") in contentious topics who do not follow the expectations listed in #Editing a contentious topic as a contentious topic restriction.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following editor restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of editor restrictions:

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any editor 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.

One year after being imposed, editor restrictions imposed by a single administrator may be modified or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

Page restrictions

Administrators may impose special rules and restrictions that apply to pages within contentious topics ("page restrictions") to minimise disruption as a contentious topic restriction. These page restrictions apply to all editors editing the restricted page.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following page restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of page restrictions:

  • page protection,
  • revert restrictions,
  • the "consensus required" restriction, [g]
  • the "enforced BRD" restriction, [h] and
  • any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee as part of the standard set of page restrictions for a particular contentious topic.

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any page 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.

An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

One year after being imposed (or renewed), page restrictions imposed by a single administrator may be renewed, modified, or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

Renewal of page restrictions

If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and logging the renewal. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Procedural summary

Imposed by: Single administrator Rough consensus of administrators at AE
Authorized restrictions
  • The "standard set" of individual or page restrictions; and
  • Any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single admin in a particular contentious topic.
  • Any action available to single administrators; and
  • Any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Maximum length Indefinite; reversible by any uninvolved administrator after one year. However, page restrictions may be renewed. Indefinite
Modifications by
  • Any administrator, if the administrator who first imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator;
  • A clear consensus of uninvolved editors at the administrators’ noticeboard;
  • A clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard; or
  • A majority of the Arbitration Committee voting on a motion in response to a request for amendment filed with the Arbitration Committee.

Vote (Contentious topic restrictions)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
One open question: should the "extended-confirmed restriction" ( WP:ECR) be added to the standard set of page restrictions, or is it sufficient to allow page protections (which include extendedconfirmed protection)? One argument against including it is that WP:ECR is written to be topic-wide rather than page-specific. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the existing allowance for use of ECP as a form of protection is sufficient. -- Izno ( talk) 18:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Agree with Izno. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: Limiting blocks to one year

Old language

Amend the previous proposal by modifying the second-to-last paragraph of "Editor restrictions" to read as follows: 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. These measures may have any duration, including indefinite, except that sitewide blocks are limited to one year in duration.

New language (1 December)

The proposal titled "Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use", as amended by the amendment titled "Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions", is further amended by inserting at the end of the "Duration of restrictions" section the following text:

Additionally, sitewide blocks become ordinary administrator actions one year after imposition, whether or not imposed by a consensus of administrators at AE.

The drafting arbitrators are directed to modify the "Procedural summary" table within the "Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use" proposal and the "Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction" section of the "Appeals and amendments" proposal for consistency with the changes made by this amendment.

Support
  1. While Kevin notes that a consensus of AN can site-ban indefinitely, after this reform it will take a rough consensus of administrators, so a lower standard among a smaller set of people and for an action that is harder to overturn than a regular site ban. This combination of easier to impose and harder to be appealed (even with the new standard imposed by this reform) is why I think ArbCom should own site bans under its purview directly. It's a serious responsibility and this kind of serious responsibility is important to have community consensus, through our election, rather than who happens to show up to an AE discussion. So I would prefer the current practice of "AE block for 1 year, indefinite as a normal admin action thereafter" to be an appropriate standard that is working and should be kept. I will note that we also seem likely to enact a referral strategy to ARCA which would be another, appropriate, way for AE admins to advance an indefinite ArbCom backed block. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think the suggested amendment here does not make it obvious that the indefinite would be as a normal action thereafter and would support with an appropriate (possibly only one or two word) change. Izno ( talk) 22:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    If Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions passes, the way to capture this would be adding the following at the bottom of the "Duration of restrictions" section: Additionally, sitewide blocks become ordinary administrator actions after one year, whether or not imposed by a consensus of administrators at AE. The wording is more awkward if that amendment doesn't pass. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Barkeep, and with the drafting changes suggested by Kevin. I'm not comfortable delegating what is essentially our power to issue site bans. We should be the ones taking the fall for those. — Wug· a·po·des​ 06:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. I'm persuaded then. I prefer the idea that an indefinite action can be taken but it becomes a normal admin action after a year if that helps. WormTT( talk) 11:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Support with L235's addition and per prior comment. Izno ( talk) 23:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Barkeep's thought process is convincing. Better for the Committee to take the blame, especially in edge cases. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. I was set to oppose this, but I find the above arguments compelling. I can't express enough how much I appreciate the work of the admins at AE, but I don't think indefinite site bans that can only be appealed to the committee should come from anywhere other than the committee itself. This is of course with the caveat that the committee should have the back of those AE admins and if a one-year block expires and the user just starts back up with exactly what they were doing before, the ArbCom banhammer should come down swiftly. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    Good point - with the new referral method there's a real way for AE admins to indicate that the 1 year CT + indef admin was insufficient. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. A consensus of editors at AN can site-ban a user indefinitely. I don't see a problem with allowing consensus of sysops at AE to indefinitely block a user for conduct within a contentious topic. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Just reaffirming my oppose here even with the updated language, per arbcom-en request. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Arbitration processes have inreasingly moved away from time-limited sanctions. If someone had done something to merit being blocked or sanctioned for a whole year, there are chances that earlier interventions did not do anything to deter the issue at hand. I don't think it's unresaonble to want to have some assurances after a year that such behaviour won't recur, which in practice involves appealing an indefinite sanction. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 19:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Also affirming. -- BDD ( talk) 21:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. There's nothing special about day 365 which will cause the editor to suddenly see the issue clearly. An indef block which allows the editor to articulate their understanding of the issue and resolve to reform sooner, or later, is appropriate. Indefinite is not infinite. Cabayi ( talk) 12:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Primefac ( talk) 20:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
Barkeep has said he has some rationale here, so I'd like to see that before voting. Izno ( talk) 18:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Now that the other amendment is passing, I've switched out the language above. (ping to @ Barkeep49, Wugapodes, Worm That Turned, Izno, and CaptainEek:, please revert if you disagree.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: wording of duration language

Withdrawing this proposal in favor of new revised one below. Any arb who prefers this one, please feel free to revert. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amend the previous proposal to read as follows:

Extended content
Contentious topic restrictions (level 2 header)

Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions in contentious topic areas. Those contentious topic restrictions take the form of editor restrictions and page restrictions. Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. [i]

Editor restrictions

Administrators may impose restrictions on individual editors ("editor restrictions") in contentious topics who do not follow the expectations listed in #Editing a contentious topic as a contentious topic restriction.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following editor restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of editor restrictions:

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any editor 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.

One year after being imposed, editor restrictions imposed by a single administrator may be modified or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

Page restrictions

Administrators may impose special rules and restrictions that apply to pages within contentious topics ("page restrictions") to minimise disruption as a contentious topic restriction. These page restrictions apply to all editors editing the restricted page.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following page restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of page restrictions:

  • page protection,
  • revert restrictions,
  • the "consensus required" restriction, [j]
  • the "enforced BRD" restriction, [k] and
  • any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee as part of the standard set of page restrictions for a particular contentious topic.

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any page 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.

An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

One year after being imposed (or renewed), page restrictions imposed by a single administrator may be renewed, modified, or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

Duration of restrictions

Contentious topic restrictions may be imposed for any fixed length of time, or for an indefinite period.

However, one year after being imposed (or last renewed, if applicable), contentious topic restrictions which were imposed by a single administrator may be amended or revoked without going through the appeals and amendments process in the same way as an ordinary administrator action.

Renewal of page restrictions

If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and logging the renewal. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Procedural summary

Imposed by: Single administrator Rough consensus of administrators at AE
Authorized restrictions
  • The "standard set" of individual or page restrictions; and
  • Any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single admin in a particular contentious topic.
  • Any action available to single administrators; and
  • Any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Maximum length Indefinite; reversible by any uninvolved administrator after one year. However, page restrictions may be renewed. Indefinite
Modifications by
  • Any administrator, if the administrator who first imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator;
  • A clear consensus of uninvolved editors at the administrators’ noticeboard;
  • A clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard; or
  • A majority of the Arbitration Committee voting on a motion in response to a request for amendment filed with the Arbitration Committee.
Support
  1. Weakly support; see my comment below. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
The changes here are purely stylistic and not substantive. I think this language might be more clear, but I am happy either way. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The actual repeated phrase that still is inconsistent relative to the draft on arbwiki (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.) isn't adjusted though? :) -- Izno ( talk) 18:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Fixed in both the top-level proposal and this one. I think this one could still be worded more clearly... I'll think it over more. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions

Summary

This amendment improves the clarity and organization of the "Contentious topic restrictions" section. It reorganizes the section by removing the "Editor restrictions" and "Page restrictions" subsections, which had a significant amount of duplicate text. Those subsections are replaced with "Standard set", "Duration of restrictions", and "Restriction notices".

In addition, this amendment reinstates the requirement that an enforcing administrator notify the restricted user when imposing a restriction. That requirement exists in the DS procedure but got dropped by a drafting error.

Finally, this amendment would harmonize the "Continuity" section, which references the "Contentious topic restrictions" section, with the above changes.

Language

Amend the previous proposal to read as follows:

Extended content
Contentious topic restrictions (level 2 header)

Administrators may are authorized to impose contentious topic restrictions in contentious topic areas. Those contentious topic restrictions take the form of editor restrictions and page restrictions.

Editor restrictions prohibit a specific editor from making edits described in the restriction and may be imposed on editors who do not follow the expectations listed in #Editing a contentious topic in a contentious topic. Page restrictions prohibit all editors on a particular page from making edits described in the restriction and may be imposed to minimize disruption in a contentious topic.

Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. [l]

Single administrators may only impose restrictions in the standard set of contentious topic restrictions. A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.

Standard set

The following editor restrictions constitute the standard set of editor restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:

The following page restrictions constitute the standard set of page restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:

  • page protection,
  • revert restrictions,
  • the "consensus required" restriction, [m]
  • the "enforced BRD" restriction, [n] and
  • other restrictions that have been specifically designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single administrator in a particular contentious topic.
Duration of restrictions

Contentious topic restrictions may be imposed for any fixed length of time, or for an indefinite period.

However, one year after being imposed (or last renewed, if applicable), contentious topic restrictions which were imposed by a single administrator may be amended or revoked without going through the appeals and amendments process in the same way as an ordinary administrator action.

Restriction notices

An administrator who imposes an editor restriction must provide a notice on the restricted editor's talk page specifying the reason for the restriction and informing the restricted editor of the appeal process.

An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

Editor restrictions

Administrators may impose restrictions on individual editors ("editor restrictions") in contentious topics who do not follow the expectations listed in #Editing a contentious topic as a contentious topic restriction.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following editor restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of editor restrictions:

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any editor 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.

One year after being imposed, editor restrictions imposed by a single administrator may be modified or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

Page restrictions

Administrators may impose special rules and restrictions that apply to pages within contentious topics ("page restrictions") to minimise disruption as a contentious topic restriction. These page restrictions apply to all editors editing the restricted page.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following page restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of page restrictions:

  • page protection,
  • revert restrictions,
  • the "consensus required" restriction, [o]
  • the "enforced BRD" restriction, [p] and
  • any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee as part of the standard set of page restrictions for a particular contentious topic.

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any page 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.

An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

One year after being imposed (or renewed), page restrictions imposed by a single administrator may be renewed, modified, or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

Renewal of page restrictions

If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and logging the renewal. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Logging
This part in italics will go here in the merged procedure but is separately voted on at #Logging.

Contentious topic restrictions must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action. [q] Administrators who renew, change, or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.

Administrators should clearly and unambiguously label their actions as contentious topic restrictions (such as in the block summary, page protection summary, edit summary, or talk page message announcing the action, whichever is appropriate). [r]

Procedural summary

Imposed by: Single administrator Rough consensus of administrators at AE
Authorized restrictions
  • The "standard set" of individual or page restrictions; and
  • Any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single admin in a particular contentious topic.
  • Any action available to single administrators; and
  • Any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Maximum length Indefinite; reversible by any uninvolved administrator after one year. However, page restrictions may be renewed. Indefinite
Modifications by
  • Any administrator, if the administrator who first imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator;
  • A clear consensus of uninvolved editors at the administrators’ noticeboard;
  • A clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard; or
  • A majority of the Arbitration Committee voting on a motion in response to a request for amendment filed with the Arbitration Committee.

Additionally, to maintain consistency in linking and wording, the " Continuity" proposal is amended by changing the two bullet points to read as follows:

Extended content
  • Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions are now subject to renewal, modification, and revocation by uninvolved administrators in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year in accordance with #Page restrictions #Duration of restrictions and #Renewal of page restrictions.
  • Previously-enacted single-admin editor restrictions do not, as a result of #Duration of restrictions, lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions" become subject to modification and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year.

Vote (Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions)

Support
  1. I might suggest the obvious-to-me additional header above The following editor restrictions constitute the standard, but otherwise this is an improvement organizationally. It may have been wise to ensure the more substantive changes to wording and the re-addition of a previous requirement were proposed separate to this one, but I think the latter is fine since it's retaining a good part of the status quo.

    I also think this suggested amendment could plausibly be part of the above now-boxed amendment which has some support already. Izno ( talk) 00:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  2. As proposed now, the wording here is better than the original proposal: it adds clarity and organizational strength without changing the substance. If both this and "Amendment: Limiting blocks to one year" pass, I'm sure we can insert the appropriate language under the new "Duration of restrictions" section. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. — Wug· a·po·des​ 06:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. BDD ( talk) 00:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. WormTT( talk) 10:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Maxim(talk) 19:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 11:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. Primefac ( talk) 20:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. One of the main goals of this extended reform process is to make this system less byzantine and easier to understand, and I feel this does that. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Arbitrator comments

Here's what a revision (more textually extensive but does not change the substance) that wholly eliminates the repeated phrases would look like – @ Izno: What do you think? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Oh, this text would actually add one substantive requirement, which is a requirement for notifying restricted users that currently exists (with different wording) in WP:AC/DS but missed the consultation: An administrator who imposes an editor restriction must provide a notice on the restricted editor's talk page specifying the reason for the restriction and informing the restricted editor of the appeal process. An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages. Additionally, administrators must log all contentious topic restrictions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The one outstanding awkward phrasing here is "the action is taken" (which is also in the parent proposal). I guess it's OK, but I'd still like something that flows better. How about "the decision to impose the restriction is taken"? More lengthy but also more clear? I'm not sure. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the problem you're having is that the action is a phrase that has no clear referent, being that it's the first time 'action' is used in this context (and maybe this whole page?). While I think you could remove the entire sentence without particular loss of clarity, here's a suggestion for rephrasing: Whether a restriction is imposed by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") changes what that restriction can be. Or possibly do a better job of summarizing, using the notion of level of consensus: The level of consensus changes what kinds of restrictions can be imposed. Izno ( talk) 00:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Izno: I've removed the sentence and added a "Standard set" header per your suggestions. I've also added a section harmonizing the "Continuity" proposal, which references this one, because the new language has new sections and does not use the terminology "lose [] status as contentious topic restrictions". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Maxim and Wugapodes: I've withdrawn the previous proposal in favor of this one, but if you prefer the previous one please feel free to revert it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Enforcement

Proposal summary

Clarifies how restrictions are enforced.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Editors must comply with contentious topic restrictions. Editors who disagree with a contentious topic restriction may appeal it, but the restriction remains in effect until it is revoked or modified by an administrator.

Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted. [s]

Editors who breach an editor or page restriction may be blocked or subjected to further editor restrictions.

However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if:

  1. The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and
  2. The restricted page displayed an editnotice ([CT EDITNOTICE]) specifying the page restriction.

Vote (Enforcement)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. WormTT( talk) 11:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. BDD ( talk) 15:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

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
Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Administrators may warn editors for conduct that falls short of the expectations in a contentious topic. Administrators may choose to log warnings in the arbitration enforcement log. Warnings that are logged in the arbitration enforcement log may be appealed like other editor restrictions. An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.

Vote (Warnings)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Administrator instructions

Language

The Arbitration Committee will, acting through its members, clerks, and other editors designated by the Committee, maintain instructions for enforcing administrators.

Consultation rationale and comments
Example

Vote (Administrator instructions)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Contentious topic subpages

Language

The Arbitration Committee will, acting through its members, clerks, and other editors designated by the Committee, maintain a subpage of the 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
Consultation rationale and comments
Example

Vote (Contentious topic subpages)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Editnotices and talk page notices

Language

The Arbitration Committee will, acting through its members, clerks, and other editors designated by the Committee, modify contentious topics editnotices and talk page notices with the following broad goals:

  • Creating two editnotice templates: one for optional use on pages with no page restrictions, and one for mandatory use on pages with page restrictions;
  • Using clear and concise formatting when describing page restrictions in place of long individual lines; and
  • Creating custom ArbCom-maintained templates for cases with existing topic-wide restrictions (such as Template:Editnotice GMO 1RR).
Consultation rationale and comments
Example

Vote (Editnotices and talk page notices)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Sure, per discussion on the talk page. Izno ( talk) 19:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Banner blindness mentioned below is concerning, but will support here. WormTT( talk) 11:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. BDD ( talk) 15:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Echo Izno and WTT — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Agree with the banner blindness concern but this is still helpful for banners are used. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. (until a banner-blindness fix appears) Cabayi ( talk) 12:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. Since we control what the banners look like, we have control over banner blindness. If we determine the banners are an issue, we could simply blank the templates. Or redesign them. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
I do want to note that I generally oppose More Banners because of banner blindness. My support here is more a support for improving the status quo. I haven't considered whether it's necessary to rock the boat here. Izno ( talk) 19:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Designation of contentious topics

Proposal summary
  • Change "authorisation" to "designation" of contentious topics
  • Minor tweaks to how conflicts between wordings are handled
Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Contentious topics may be designated either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by Arbitration Committee motion. When it becomes apparent that a particular contentious topic designation is no longer necessary, the Committee may rescind it. Any editor may request that the Committee review a contentious topic designation by submitting a request for amendment ("ARCA"). Unless the Committee specifies otherwise, after rescinding a designation, all restrictions previously-issued under that designation remain in force and continue to be governed by the contentious topics procedure.

Vote (Designation)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Beeblebrox what about the last sentence are you not sure about? Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    The way I'm reading it, if the committee rescinds a designation, it doesn't actually change anything. All restrictions remain in force and subject to CT procedures. I feel like I'm missing something here that was apparently obvious to everyone else. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    No you have it right. It's just that has been our standard way of doing things when repealing DS. So if an editor was under a TBAN because of DS and we repeal the DS the TBAN remains though presumably they owuld have an easier chance of successfully appealing it. An example of this language being used before in motions you supported is here. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    I should add that, importantly for me, page protections which are far more likely to have ongoing effects after a repeal now have an easier way of being modified. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
    That was actually my main thought, that a page could be under EC protection, which is very restrictive, solely because it used to be under the CT regime and nobody wants to touch it because of that. That feels like a less than optimal result to me. However, I also have to acknowledge that I have come into this process very late and to be perfectly honest, although I feel reforming it is a priority and I am exceedingly grateful to those of you who undertook this and got it this far, I've found it so dry and boring that I probably am not as familiar with how it works as I should be, so I'll just stay at an abstain as it won't change the result. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Logging

Proposal summary

Reducing and simplifying the language around logging

Consultation rationale and comments
Language

Contentious topic restrictions must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action. [t] Administrators who renew, change, or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.

Administrators should clearly and unambiguously label their actions as contentious topic restrictions (such as in the block summary, page protection summary, edit summary, or talk page message announcing the action, whichever is appropriate). [u]

Vote (Logging)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 11:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
Per @ Nosebagbear's comment on the talk page I'd love to see a script (or bot) make logging easier. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Indeed. If only someone were enterprising enough for it. -- Izno ( talk) 18:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I would love a log script. Its a real pain to do it manually. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Continuity

Proposal summary

Establishes transition rules from discretionary sanctions to contentious topics.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Any restrictions imposed under the prior discretionary sanctions procedure to date remain in force. Any changes to or appeals regarding previously-imposed restrictions will be governed by the current contentious topics procedure, subject to the following transitional rules:

  • Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions are now subject to renewal, modification, and revocation by uninvolved administrators in accordance with #Page restrictions.
  • Previously-enacted single-admin editor restrictions do not, as a result of #Editor restrictions, lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions" after one year.

Vote (Continuity)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. WormTT( talk) 11:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. BDD ( talk) 16:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. I appreciate the page restriction transition as someone who still hasn't finished his review of old indefinite move protections. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. I think this is absolutely the right way to handle that difference. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
The rationale for the difference in treatment for individual vs. page restrictions is that page restrictions can be reimposed at any point and one of the main purposes of the one-year rule is allowing admins to clean up old page restrictions when they're no longer necessary but nobody is incentivized to put in the effort to go through the whole AE process to repeal them. Whereas individual restrictions can't just be reimposed and also don't suffer from that problem. I could be convinced to apply the new rules to individual restrictions, though. The language right now is pretty clunky. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Administrators' role and expectations

Proposal summary

Reducing and simplifying the language

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics. Administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum. Before imposing a contentious topic restriction, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project.

While contentious topic restrictions give administrators necessary latitude, administrators must not:

  1. impose a restriction when involved;
  2. modify a restriction out of process;
  3. repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions;
  4. repeatedly fail to log restriction or page restrictions; or
  5. repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate restriction or issue a grossly disproportionate restriction.

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

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.

Administrator expectations

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Expectations of administrators. In addition to the expectations specific to contentious topic restrictions above, the following expectations apply to all enforcement decisions:
Adopted on 21 April 2017

Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions; and they must not be involved. Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement.

Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal. However, they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist in reaching a determination.

Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions to be imposed for violations of a final decision, the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction. Conversely, editors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly.

Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. However, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement.

When a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request.

Vote (Administrators' role and expectations)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. BDD ( talk) 22:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 15:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 09:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

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.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content
Noticeboard scope
If adopted this section would be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures and transcluded here similarly to "Dismissing an enforcement request" below

The arbitration enforcement noticeboard may consider:

  • requests for administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction [LINK] imposed by an administrator,
  • requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors [LINK] who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic [LINK],
  • requests for page restrictions [LINK] (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in contentious topics,
  • appeals against arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions), or
  • requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.

For all other matters, including content disagreements or the enforcement of other community-imposed sanctions, editors should use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal decisions made directly by the Arbitration Committee, editors should submit a request for clarification or amendment.

Noticeboard outcomes

Requests and appeals at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may not be closed with a "rough consensus" or "clear consensus" outcome without at least 24 hours of discussion.

Sample language for community use of the AE noticeboard
This is sample language for how the community would assign GS enforcement functions to the AE noticeboard.
Proposal (lightweight)

I propose that the AE noticeboard be a venue for enforcement requests and appeals for the community-imposed general sanctions currently in effect for professional wrestling.

Proposal (detailed)

I propose that the community-imposed general sanctions currently in effect for professional wrestling be amended to read as follows:

Old (to be replaced)

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

New (to be enacted)

  • The community designates professional wrestling as a community-designated contentious topic. Uninvolved administrators may take enforcement actions in the area of conflict as specified in the contentious topics procedure.
  • Enforcement requests and appeals may be heard at the AE noticeboard consistent with the contentious topics procedure.


Vote (AE noticeboard)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 09:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. BDD ( talk) 19:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 12:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
  • Can the sample language incorporate a binary choice about whether or not the community wants amendments to CT/AT by ArbCom to automatically be incorporated into its restrictions? This way there's no guessing when this happens. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amendment: removing community scope

Amend the previous proposal by striking the last bullet point of "Noticeboard scope".

Support
  1. I appear to be one of the few here. My concern with mixing the use of this noticeboard directly is that it will inevitably confuse who has authority and where, something I know some of the users in the oppose pile are now being inconsistent with regarding previous discussions. Using the same style of enforcement request noticeboard also does not fundamentally require that the community use what is now AE, only that they have a place to enforce their own decision making. The community can set that up at their leisure, and it is honestly surprising to me that it has been unable to given the support for it. Izno ( talk) 22:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. We've received several requests to "take over" community-authorized discretionary sanctions over the years. We've also heard feedback during Consultation I that the AE venue is one of the best features of DS. If we're willing to take over DS authorizations just to allow folks to use AE, then we should just allow the community to authorize the use of AE for its CT equivalents. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. One goal I have for this review is harmonizing the DS/GS divide, and making it easy for the community to bootstrap the committee procedures helps keep them aligned. Disallowing the use of AE for community-authorized sanctions means a separate policy with AE removed must be maintained which is bad. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. The community has asked for a way to use AE at several points including the consultation and draft review. I am excited that this is happening. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. per my colleagues WormTT( talk) 09:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. BDD ( talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Cabayi ( talk) 13:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. To me, this is a major innovation that I think will have a very positive outcome. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. I feel that this is something we were asked to do by the community, so we should do it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Sufficiency of other actions

Proposal summary

Reaffirms existing practice

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

Before imposing a delegated enforcement action, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project.

Vote (Sufficiency of other actions)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 18:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. — Wug· a·po·des​ 01:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 09:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. BDD ( talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. This is an important one for me. Just because something is in a CT/AT area doesn't mean that CT/AT needs to be used when an admin action is taken. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Keep as close to the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" ideal as possible, Cabayi ( talk) 13:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Enforcement templates and procedural documents

Proposal summary

Authorizes arbitrators and clerks, after consulting ArbCom, to update and maintain AE templates and docs, including for CT (e.g. alert templates, editnotices, case-specific pages)

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
If adopted this section would be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures.

Arbitrators and arbitration clerks may, after consultation with the Arbitration Committee, update and maintain templates and procedural documents related to arbitration enforcement processes (including the contentious topics system).

Vote (Enforcement templates and procedural documents)

Support
  1. I think this proposal may actually lead to some of the most important improvements to the system. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 19:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Making this less onerous is a good thing WormTT( talk) 10:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. BDD ( talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 13:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. I agree with Kevin: giving our Clerks the ability to amend the templates is quite impactful, as it is what most editors interact with on a daily basis. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Arbitration enforcement log

Proposal summary

Strikes detailed implementation-level language from the procedure establishing the arbitration enforcement log.

Language

The last paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Logging is amended to read as follows:

A central log ("log") of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including discretionary sanctions contentious topic restrictions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/2015], [/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by case. An annual log sub-page shall be untranscluded from the main log page (but not blanked) once five years have elapsed since the date of the last entry (including sanctions and appeals) recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Once all sanctions recorded on the page have expired or been successfully appealed, the log page shall be blanked. The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee.

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 19:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. Procedure vs Policy WormTT( talk) 10:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. BDD ( talk) 19:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 13:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
This would remove implementation-level details from the official binding procedure so that those details can be managed under the previous proposal (by [a]rbitrators and arbitration clerks [], after consultation with the Arbitration Committee). For example, we recently received a request from LaundryPizza03 asking us to reduce the number of years shown on the main page. I haven't given the number of years of archive to show much thought, but I think those kinds of details should not require codification in the main Committee procedure, subject to change only by changing the formal procedure. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
By the way, I've stricken the ("log") from the text as superfluous, and changed "discretionary sanctions" to "contentious topic restrictions". Ping to @ Izno, Maxim, and Worm That Turned:, who have already voted – please revert if you disagree. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 12:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm OK with the change. Maxim(talk) 13:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, that makes sense. WormTT( talk) 13:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Decorum

Proposal summary

Retains the "Decorum" section verbatim.

Consultation rationale and comments
  • Not in the original consultation because there were no changes from the original DS procedure.
Language
Extended content
Decorum

Certain pages (including the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), and the Arbitration Committee's requests for amendment ("ARCA")) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of individual and page restrictions. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement with parties (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted, and may remove statements or restrict or block editors to address inappropriate conduct.

Vote (Decorum)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Izno ( talk) 19:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. WormTT( talk) 10:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. BDD ( talk) 19:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Cabayi ( talk) 13:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  11. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Administrative provisions

Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.

Vote (Administrative provisions)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. I understand this to mean DS is superseded by CT, and anything referring to DS in the past now refers to CT. This can largely be done with redirects, but should be clearer on case pages. WormTT( talk) 10:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. BDD ( talk) 19:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. I can see this as a useful belt to the overall suspenders of the general implementation. Primefac ( talk) 12:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. I have the same reading as WTT — Wug· a·po·des​ 05:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Cabayi ( talk) 13:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. As clarified by L235 below. Izno ( talk) 23:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
When we say "each reference", what do we mean? Every single one by every user ever? Or is this intended to be more limited? Izno ( talk) 19:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the intent is that CT is the successor to DS and past references to DS (wherever found) should be treated as references to CT in the future. How about this? The contentious topics procedure is the successor to the discretionary sanctions procedure, and each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. Additionally, the arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics. Not sure if that's any clearer. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
What does this do that the implementing motion does not? I have an idea but want to make sure I understand before voting. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I am not strictly opposed to this motion, but I would like to know the answer to this question before making a final decision. Primefac ( talk) 13:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC) reply
It's possible that this is superfluous given the passage of the continuity section and motion to close. The intent behind the first sentence is to treat CT as the successor to DS in all respects. The purpose of the second sentence is to make it explicit that the text of the remedies will be changed (they won't keep the same text and just be interpreted differently in the future – that would be pretty user-unfriendly). I expect that when we amend all the old cases, this motion will be linked as the authority for doing so in the "Amended by motion at DATE" italic postscript. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That doesn't clarify. Who is that shall being levied on? All users? All administrators? All references internal to the ArbCom body of policy and procedure? Izno ( talk) 22:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Ah, I understand your question now. The intent is to capture at least all references to DS in any setting that binds users: for example, ArbProc and policy references to DS (such as WP:BANAUTH) but also any community decisions, etc. That's hard to capture in a short phrase – "Each reference in Wikipedia policy to the prior [...]" would really miss a broad swath of the applicable things. And the "shall" applies to everyone to whom the contentious topic procedure applies. ( This isn't a unique construction, but it does seem to be used in legal settings, so I'm happy to find other wording if more clear.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Here's another example out "in the wild" that I stumbled across but probably wouldn't have systematically caught: WP:APLECP says Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area. After the procedural change, this should be read as "Eastern Europe or the Balkans" remains a contentious topic, as designated in the Eastern Europe arbitration case. Making this change would be authorized by the motion to close, but we might well miss it by accident. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Ok, I mostly needed that clarification. I am not totally sure if the current sentence is sufficient, but I agree it is awkward otherwise. Izno ( talk) 23:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee

Proposal summary

Allows a consensus of administrators at AE to refer cases "in unusual circumstances" to the full Committee for decision.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language

If a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard determines that unusual circumstances prevent the arbitration enforcement process from reaching a successful outcome, it may refer the enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through a request for amendment.

Vote (Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee)

Support
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Maxim(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Had to sit on this for a while. I think that this will add to the ArbCom's Pile of Quickly Resolvable Things, but I think preventing "harassment" as it was framed at the consultation weighs heavier. Izno ( talk) 19:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. WormTT( talk) 10:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. BDD ( talk) 19:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. Second choice to Barkeep's alternative below, per Kevin's 27 Nov comment in that discussion section. — Wug· a·po·des​ 06:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Cabayi ( talk) 13:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Second choice to the alt. Primefac ( talk) 20:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. Second choice. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. For reasons I support the alt below. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Prefer the alt. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators

Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee alt

Language

A consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may refer an arbitration enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through a request for amendment.

Vote (Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee alt)

Support
  1. I think this is more in-line with the feedback we got during the consultation which led to its creation in the first place. I prefer this version to the one above because I don't know what unusual circumstances mean and would prefer ArbCom to not have to say "this isn't unusual AE admins try again". By setting it to a consensus, rather than the normal rough consensus for AE outcomes, it will automatically mean it's a bit unusual. The comment against this when I threw it out to the committee is that we're ineffecient at ARCA. That is true. I would say two things in response: first I think we should be more efficient at ARCA and have suggested a way to do so. Second AE admins know darn well what ARCA is like and so I would trust them to make the determination in the moment. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Equal support with the bump up from rough. Izno ( talk) 22:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Per Barkeep, I prefer a higher bar for referrals than regular actions. — Wug· a·po·des​ 00:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. This is simpler, and easier to implement. Rough consensus is a useful standard that we're implementing here, but I'm not sure it is as useful when it comes to Committee referrals. ArbCom just doesn't need to handle most AE items, and we're ultimately not super good at it. It still could be useful, and I think we should keep the option, but the bar needs to be higher. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. WormTT( talk) 10:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Prefer this version. Maxim(talk) 19:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  7. Cabayi ( talk) 11:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  8. First choice. Primefac ( talk) 20:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  9. Second choice. I still prefer the initial version, but don't oppose this one. -- BDD ( talk) 21:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  10. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
  1. I think the consultation feedback is very helpful, which is why this proposal is here, but it is ultimately advisory. We are in a better position to know what works well at ARCA than the average community member who understandably does not need to follow ARCA closely, and we should apply that knowledge. "Unusual circumstances" is already watered down from "extraordinary circumstances", and I don't want it watered down further. Ultimately, I see the "unusual circumstances" text as useful advice for AE admins on when to use this ability. I therefore respectfully oppose. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't think our internal discussion intended to water it down (or at least I didn't), we wanted extraordinary defined. Izno ( talk) 22:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    It's hard to further define "unusual" or "extraordinary" without enumerating all the exact cases, which is impractical here. In context, the phrase is unusual circumstances [that] prevent the arbitration enforcement process from reaching a successful outcome, which I hope has meaning. Happy to expand on my thoughts but if arbs are convinced this is better I will let this disagreement go – this is a more minor disagreement. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
Ultimately the exact proposal isn't a huge deal to me, but nitpicky Kevin has a significant concern with the consensus wording here. I have no problem bumping up the level of consensus (from "rough consensus") and would be happy to modify the other proposal to do so, but I don't like saying just "consensus" – that creates essentially three levels of consensus in this procedure (rough consensus, clear consensus, and just plain consensus), even though rough consensus and clear consensus are supposed to be subtypes of consensus and not distinct from the idea of consensus. It's not immediately obvious to a reader that the order should be clear consensus > "consensus" > rough consensus, or that the latter two are supposed to be different levels – adding in just plain consensus is likely to cause significant interpretive confusion. I would advocate for using either rough consensus or clear consensus. I don't think bumping up the level of consensus needs to be accompanied by dropping the "unusual circumstances prevent the arbitration enforcement process from reaching a successful outcome" guidance. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Barkeep49, would you be opposed to having the alt say "clear consensus"? Primefac ( talk) 10:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply
It's definitely not my preference. I think it would absolutely be understood that "rough consensus" requires less than of consensus and consensus requires less than clear consensus. Consensus is an entire policy and is a word that we (ArbCom) use all the time. I count 180 instances of it in our archived principles and 1 of clear consensus. This idea that consensus is a term that would be hard for AE admin or future committees to understand just doesn't strike me as likely. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Notes

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ Editors should exercise caution before re-alerting an editor to the same contentious topic as a previous alert, as there is a presumption that an editor remains aware.
  3. ^ Edits made before an editor was aware of a contentious topic designation may still be considered as part of a pattern of behavior in future enforcement processes if those processes primarily concern post-awareness conduct.
  4. ^ An editor who has not received an alert may also be presumed to be aware of a contentious topic if the editor:
    • Was mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision;
    • Was ever restricted or formally warned within the contentious topic;
    • Ever alerted another editor to the contentious topic;
    • Ever received a discretionary sanctions alert ({{ ds/alert}}) for the same topic;
    • Ever participated in any process relating to the contentious topic (such as a request or appeal at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), or an Arbitration Committee process page ( requests for arbitration and subpages);
    • Has placed a {{ Ct/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or
    • Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
  5. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
  6. ^ This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.
  7. ^ On pages where "consensus required" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.
  8. ^ On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until (a) the editor posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) the edit waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
  9. ^ This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.
  10. ^ On pages where "consensus required" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.
  11. ^ On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until (a) the editor posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) the edit waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
  12. ^ This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.
  13. ^ On pages where "consensus required" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.
  14. ^ On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
  15. ^ On pages where "consensus required" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.
  16. ^ On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until (a) the editor posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) the edit waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
  17. ^ Other administrators may log the contentious topic restriction on behalf of the original administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".
  18. ^ If an enforcing administrator clearly intends to impose a contentious topic restrictions but forgets to label their action, other administrators may label the action (such as through a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".
  19. ^ An uninvolved administrator who enforces a restriction by reversion is performing an administrative action and does not thereby become involved for administrative purposes.
  20. ^ Other administrators may log the contentious topic restriction on behalf of the original administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".
  21. ^ If an enforcing administrator clearly intends to impose a contentious topic restrictions but forgets to label their action, other administrators may label the action (such as through a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Izno ( talk) 22:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Name 10 0 1 Passing · 3 first choice and 1 second choice to below
Amendment: Arbitrated topics 5 5 1 Cannot pass Cannot pass 1 first choice and 3 second choice to above. As the above passes, the second choices for this motion become opposes which leads to a majority oppose.
Nutshell 11 0 1 Passing ·
Lead section 11 0 1 Passing ·
Awareness 11 0 1 Passing ·
Amendment: removing bot prohibition 3 8 1 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Appeals and amendments 11 0 1 Passing ·
Amendment: Appeal timeframe 9 1 1 Passing ·
Amendment: earlier stages preferred 1 9 1 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Amendment: earlier stages preferred (2) 4 4 4 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Amendment: appeal template 9 1 2 Passing ·
Amendment: Allow a priori consent 8 1 2 Passing ·
Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use 11 0 1 Passing ·
Amendment: Limiting blocks to one year 6 5 1 Passing ·
Amendment: wording of duration language 3 0 1 Cannot pass Cannot pass Withdrawn
Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions 11 0 1 Passing ·
Enforcement 11 0 1 Passing ·
Warnings 11 0 1 Passing ·
Administrator instructions 11 0 1 Passing ·
Contentious topic subpages 11 0 1 Passing ·
Editnotices and talk page notices 11 0 1 Passing ·
Designation of contentious topics 10 0 2 Passing ·
Logging 11 0 1 Passing ·
Continuity 11 0 1 Passing ·
Administrators' role and expectations 11 0 1 Passing ·
AE noticeboard 11 0 1 Passing ·
Amendment: removing community scope 1 10 1 Cannot pass Cannot pass
Sufficiency of other actions 11 0 1 Passing ·
Enforcement templates and procedural documents 11 0 1 Passing ·
Arbitration enforcement log 11 0 1 Passing ·
Decorum 11 0 1 Passing ·
Administrative provisions 10 0 1 Passing ·
Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee 5 2 1 Currently not passing 1 Three 2nd choices to alt (not included in the count to avoid marking the motion as passing), which is considered opposes as the one below currently passes.
Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee alt 10 1 1 Passing ·
Motion to close 6 0 1 Passing ·
Notes

I have marked Enterprisey as inactive based on a comment he made privately. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Motion to close

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Vote (motion to close)

Support
  1. I think we're done here? A big thanks to everyone in the community for their help with this massive undertaking. Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  2. Maxim(talk) 00:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  3. Izno ( talk) 02:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  4. With deep appreciation for everyone who made this possible, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  5. As above. Primefac ( talk) 08:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  6. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Temporarily, while we wait for #Amendment: earlier stages preferred (2) to either pass or fail. @ Wugapodes: it's all down to you – no pressure KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Moving to support. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Abstain
  1. Donald Albury 22:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by arbitrators
I'm thinking of adding "In doing so, the drafting arbitrators may make clarifying changes to the procedure provided that those changes are not objected to by an arbitrator." at the end of the first paragraph. We've been making clarifying/wording changes to the proposals well past the five-day period and I would like to be able to start voting while keeping the security of knowing that we can continue make clarifying changes if needed. Would there be any objections? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC) reply
We often make changes to motions when voting is open why is this different? Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I agree with Barkeep here. If we need ad hoc changes, the specific proposal can take them. :) Izno ( talk) 19:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The intent here was to allow minor uncontroversial clarifications after voting concludes when doing the implementation work, when points of clarification are most likely to surface. Since any arb can object, these will be minor changes. However, if this is a problem I'm definitely not wedded to it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Can we put some sort of time limit on the drafters ability to implement? I worry about unintended consequences from such an indefinite grant. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That seems reasonable. How about for one month after enactment? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That seems reasonable to me. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I'd just like to thank the arbitrators who have put so much effort into this. There's been a lot of review, community consultation, consideration and feedback and it's taken well over a year. I'm sure at more than one point it has pushed our arbitrators to the limit, so to each of them involved in this process (you know who you are), I want to express my sincere gratitude. Thank you. WormTT( talk) 10:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I second this big thank you. Maxim(talk) 00:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Just a note that while we're technically at a majority to close this, L235 is going to be semi-active for a few days and I expect we're going to wait to close it formally until he's around to help lead implementation. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/2021-22_review/Proposed_decision&oldid=1133682702"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE