This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Times have changed. When I was brought before this board (years ago), my judgement was quite swift. I easily got a 1-week, then 1-month forced vacation :) GoodDay ( talk) 19:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I do get the impression that with certain editors (the AE gang that shows up daily to report one side or the other), DS and AE actually act as a disincentive to cooperate. It seems to turn into a competition to see who can edit tendentiously enough so that they can file a report on the other user, but not visa versa. TimothyJosephWood 20:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

( edit conflict)::Yep, it's why Wikipedia articles in contentious issues are not reliable. They are usually one-sided. The side with more numbers win. In the end editors don't really feel like putting in effort to edit when it's such a hostile environment. I remember in the heyday, 2006-2011, when editing was fun. Now, you always look over your shoulder and think twice before deciding to edit to see if it's really worth it to get into a pissing match. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^{🍸 (talk)} 20:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This is only possible when there are no Admins available to take a strong enforcement stand. There's not even a need for most of these cases to come to a noticeboard that invites uninvolved and off-topic drama. Admins have the authority to block disruptive users on these topics, but very few have volunteered to do so. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Soo...what if we required users to provide evidence they've followed, or at least attempted the dispute resolution process? I mean, in the same way that we require users to demonstrate that they have provided the DS warning? TimothyJosephWood 22:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any of the admins who do the actual administratin' on AE actually read this talk page. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That might be why my words were relocated here. 😫 SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Could we actually start an RfC to eliminate AE? I would be eminently in favor, but it would be one of the most flagrant applications of WP:IAR I can envision. TimothyJosephWood 00:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I think all that's needed is to recruit some Admins who might be willing to patrol and enforce the articles under sanctions. It's not clear to me why Admins would invest all their time on this board and then back away from fulfilling the role Arbcom gave them. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems more effective to eliminate the drama board and force editors to reach out to individual admins. TimothyJosephWood 01:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Gonna ping the Bish, since they're to blame, considering their terrible suggestion prompted this more terrible one. TimothyJosephWood 01:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose eliminating it. It's not working very well right now, true - mostly because of number of requests. But I've actually seen it even worse. It ebbs and flows and when it works it really cleans up trouble areas. Israeli-Palestinian topics is much much much quieter thanks to AE. Ditto Macedonia. India-Pakistan. Even Eastern Europe was doing relatively well until a couple years ago (and the change is no fault of AE, just a lot to deal with now). So we shouldn't get rid of something which really is useful based on a short snap shot of time and because we're currently in a low. Getting some more admins to learn the ropes or getting some of the old ones to come back would be useful.

Also, I'm pretty sure it would take an ArbCom motion or something like that to close down AE. It could die a natural death, but as long as people keep filing reports and admins keep looking at'em, it'll be here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Reform it I'm starting to collect ideas of potential reforms, and would be interested in other peoples concise suggestions for the general goals any reform should strive for. Examples

1. Increase signal-to-noise
2. Formatting requirements or tools to identify specific principles from arb rulings and which diffs violate which principles
3. Vastly greater emphasis on clean hands and rejecting excuse-making on basis of how awful the other party was
4. Programming so that people joining the discussion are warned up front that ad hominems that fail to cite an ARB principle and diff that demonstrates a violation are subject to summary DS.

Questions on my mind include

1. Would it help to create a separate level of adminship specifically for AE?

Anyone with other ideas on general principles or specific tools please send those thoughts my way either here or at my talk page.

NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm sticking with my original suggestion of requiring that filing parties provide diffs of where they have attempted to engage in the dispute resolution process, in a separate section like the DS notification, and required just like the DS notification. If behavior is so flagrantly bad that it precludes the need for DR, then it precludes the need for AE, and the editor should be blocked in short order at another appropriate forum, without having to wade through the bureaucracy of this one.

Heated topics are going to get heated. This makes DR more and not less important if the actual point is consensus, compromise, and improvement...as opposed to of course, having the other user TBANNED and having your way with the disputed article. Part of the problem of AE is that it is, in a great many circumstances, simply easier than dispute resolution. An RfC may take 30 days without a clear consensus. AE, cumbersome as it is, may only take a week or so. That provides a fairly strong incentive in my opinion to favor action here than action through the correct channels, the ones that are designed to be the first line of defense when there are disputes among editors. TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This is not unlike, and is only a stricter version of the ANEW requirement that You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too. TimothyJosephWood 16:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Good thoughts, keep 'em coming NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

To echo, I think it should be mandatory that a courtesy notice to self-revert for 1RR or edit/consensus edits be utilized first before filing an AE action. Only after a courtesy notice goes unanswered can an AE action be filed. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^{🍸 (talk)} 16:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Sir Joseph: (A) For 1RR it would have to include a diff to show where 1RR applies and even then there may be ambiguous cases where reasonable minds might differ. (B) What do you mean by "edit/consensus edits"? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

When someone edits in violation of 1RR in many cases it's a mistake. I've gotten a friendly notice that "you violated 1RR, revert or I'll report you" or something similar. So if I bring a 1RR action, I of course will have to show the diff of 1RR, but I should also have to show where I asked the editor to self revert. By "edit/consensus" I mean something similar, in many areas of DS, there is a rule that you can't restore a reverted edit without consensus. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^{🍸 (talk)} 16:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant is that if we REQUIRE any sort of tickle before editors run to AE, then it needs to be a complete tickle, and that means the other party needs to be able to look at the same provision the complaining editor is referencing. If the complain-er is required to cough up such a DIFF at AE, then they should produce it in the notice you're talking about. That will help keep it all honest, if we adopt the general notice rule you're talking about. I'll add that I like the suggestion what we require a showing of an attempt to do dispute resolution, and the giving of the notice you're talking about should not count, since dispute resolution should be done with the vibe of building everyone up, and the notice you're talking about is highly likely to be recieved as "Do X--- or else...." NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The wording can always be changed. But right now, there is no requirement for a courtesy wording, so in many cases it is "do it or I'll report you." Today I just posted a courtesy notice, and I imagine it was self-understood that if it wasn't reverted, I'd report. But the rule should be there, discuss/warn first before you submit to AE. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^{🍸 (talk)} 18:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the DS violations reported recently have been inadvertent. More often, the perpetrator angrily denies the DS restrictions when offered the friendly neutral DS Notice template. So I don't think that "accidents" is what we need to address. If they ever did occur, they'd be quickly set aside at AE because they wouldn't give rise to these roaming POV swarms of ad hominem attack lurkers. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Banning people who are not directly involved in the dispute/report from commenting would be a good start. The amount of "peanut gallery" commentary has gotten ridiculous. I'm also pretty sure that it wouldn't be novel - at one point User:Sandstein at least suggested it, and iirc, at another time admins would simply remove comments by such users. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Opposed to banning 3rd party comments outright but eds with pack mentality or axes to grind are a H-U-G-E problem. Here's a very rough initial idea on a middle ground. What if we deny 3rd parties the ability to directly edit the report and instead make them use Q&A pop up templates? This would allow us to allow valuable additional information into the report, but would provide tools for keeping toxicity out. The resulting output for a third party comment might look like

DIFF-Number-1-THAT-VIOLATES-RULING....(max 20 words explaining how)

DIFF-Number-2-THAT-VIOLATES-RULING....(max 20 words explaining how)

DIFF-Number-3-THAT-VIOLATES-RULING....(max 20 words explaining how)

DIFF-Number-4-THAT-VIOLATES-RULING....(max 20 words explaining how)

COMMENT - Max 50 words to say anything

REQUEST FOR MORE WORDS - Max 20 words to ask some admin to approve further commentary in the report

Finally, as editor fills out the pop up boxes they get ample warning that they WILL (repeat WILL) be sanctioned if admins decide their claims are frivolous (no reasonable basis to believe they show a violation) or for overly peronalized nastiness in their general comment. Of course the whole thing turns on admins who are willing to work at AE and need very little evidence to pass out an AE block. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I worry that we're heaping more bureaucracy atop doubtful bureaucracy. TimothyJosephWood 00:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If it works, the peanut gallery becomes un-Fun and so it quickly becomes a combination of (A) valuable additions and (B) a way for WP:CIR-bannable eds to hasten the process and (C) a couple years into the process a new culture at AE. If it does not work, then your fears will be realized..... Alas. Aside from your understandable fear would trying something like this create any lasting damage? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure something like that would be easy to game and might just encourage lots of "diff-padding" - including a whole bunch of innocuous or borderline diffs to make it seem like something "really bad" is going on in the hopes that the admins will be too busy to check through all of them. Perhaps something like requiring outside commentators to provide a succinct rationale for why and how their comments are related to the dispute with the understanding that if admins find this rationale wanting, they might get sanction (either a short site block or a ban from AE etc) Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• First of all these suggestions by NewsAndEventsGuy are not workable. "If a sanctioned editor makes a very minimal showing that the sanctioning admin might be biased against them then the sanction should be erase"??? I can tell only one thing: do not bring poorly substantiated requests to AE. The reported misbehavior must be (a) obvious even from a few diffs, (b) significant, and (c) systematic. Here are just a few examples of something that should not be brought to AE (from report by ED):

1. "POV pushing" [1] - no, this is actually a legitimate discussion of subject,
2. "Dishonesty" [2] - why? this is complex edit and complex context; what are you talking about?,
3. "edit warring" [diff], [diff] against "consensus" - but there was no official closing to summarize consensus and "reverts" reflected restoration of different texts, most of which were not subject of the RfC. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Speaking about comments by 3rd parties, just remember that they should be very specific, with diffs (unless you do not really care). For example, simply telling that "there is ample evidence of harassing and uncourteous hostility in the diffs listed in the complaint" (as NewsAndEventsGuy tells) only shows a bias by NewsAndEventsGuy. What exactly diff are you talking about? And if you are talking about specific diff(s), is it really obvious from the diff that it is "harassing", as oppose to legitimate discussion? My very best wishes ( talk) 17:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input MVBW, however, I decline to rehash that case file (or any case file) in this thread. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I simply use specific examples, and my point precisely that all comments must be very specific. Consider an additional example. You blamed VM of harassment on AE. He responded that on AE. Now, you are telling [3] that his AE response was "harassment" and looks "like frequent behavioral commentary at article talk", and you do it without any supporting diffs. No, his AE response was not harassment, as anyone can see after looking at the diff. Taken by itself, this your comment was just another personal accusation that will not serve any purpose except discrediting your own comments. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, my own remarks have all sorts of shortcomings. I'm happy to be an example of nasty things we should purge from AE, keep it up. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Initial word limit What about a word limit and ability to request more space, combined with instruction to admins to routinely deny such requests unless some admin opines the first text is information-packed and the situation seems to warrant more space? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Adding from @Bish's talk page: If our software wizards can figure out how to do so, the edit box for filing complaints at AE/AN/ANI should automatically count and force 500 or appropriate word limit (or just display only the first 500 words, commenting out the rest). Any admin may convert "commented out excess filing" to an expanded filing. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 12:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

In my view, there is nothing to be gained via Sarah's "comment out" alternative. The whole purpose of a word limit is to increase signal-to-noise. Disciplined commenters who are not commenting for recreational purposes (i.e., because they like the drama) will already ignore the chaffe, so hiding it from these eds serves little purpose. In contrast, undisciplined editors and those who like to count coup here will read and reply to everything they can find. For this reason, commenting out some extra words boils down to WP:CREEP for no reward. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: See the top of the Project page. Inside the pink box, it reads, "Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator." Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 13:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the current system of self-enforcement is not working. It's essentially a clerk task, and programming could do it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

But MSW is suggesting automating the task thereby relieving clerks of this task. I have made the same suggestion for automation elsewhere for the same reasons. I'm not sure about the "comment out" alternative - I would favour that the input box simply accepts no more information after the specified number of words/characters. That way, the superfluous information never gets into the project and therefore does not need dealing with in any way. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Copy-pasting from @ Bishonen:'s talk page, with a few clarifications.

The ability of upset editors to post the same issue/appeal at a rapid fire pace, and on multiple noticeboards (AE/ANI/AN) needs a rethink.

Due process objective for the upset editor is important, but so are three other objectives: [a] the time and effort of admins, [b] the time and effort of non-admin editors hauled up, and [c] the goals of the wikipedia project. Time is a zero-sum issue.

It may be time to consider, if there aren't already, rules on

[A1] case consolidation. Cases involving the same filer and target editor(s) / admin(s), cannot be posted on more than one admin forum, and the burden to consolidate multiple cases into one must be of the filer, or the option of any admin (the filer should certify that there is no pending, parallel cases on another admin board)

[A2] cool off rule between appeal(s) on the same case; that is, if someone is sanctioned or blocked, the first appeal can be immediate; but if the appeal is denied, the editor must wait for 24 hours after the appeal was denied, before filing a second appeal; if that is denied, wait for 72 hours before third appeal on any board, and so on.

These or alternate case consolidation and cool off rules may help balance the interests of all sides, reduce the time sink associated with parallel filings and rapid fire appeals. It may also give the aggrieved party some time to get their emotions, thoughts and facts together before filing a new appeal. There is no emergency in wikipedia. Just some suggestions. I confess I am really clueless about AE/AN guidelines and history. I also confess that I am far more concerned about the three objectives above, far less about the due process for upset disrupters after the first appeal. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 12:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

ReA1 - "case consolidation", isn't that already controlled by WP:FORUMSHOP (which is also known by the short cut ADMINSHOP) ?

ReA2 - "cool off period", that seems reasonable to me but I'll reserve judgment for awhile to see if anyone points out a downside. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:Forumshop is a part of WP:Consensus process on talk page, article content. Not about mandatory-consolidation requirement re AE/AN/ANI and such. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 13:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't read through this entire thread, so forgive me if I'm saying something that's already been said. IMHO, this board should operate more like WP:AIV. An editor comes along, provides a diff of the edit that violated Arb sanctions and a diff to prove the editor being reported knew of the Arb sanctions. Later, an admin comes along, decides how to respond, and does so. End of. The way it works now is like a mini-arbcom, and arbcom is just a hot mess. (Have any of you folks tried reading though the 5MB of legalistic, overly formal and overly formatted fluff that is an arbcom decision just to find out if the guy edit warring with you was permanently or temporarily topic-banned from the subject in question? I have. It sucks.)

In short, I guess I'm saying that the more we can do to make this sort of thing less formal, the better. The way it is now encourages pomposity on the part of the admins and wikilawyering and drama on the part of the editors. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear! — JFG ^talk 09:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that AE proceedings should be shorter. The problem is, in my view, (a) a peanut gallery of editors who come along to voice their (mostly irrelevant) opinions, and (b) a reluctance of admins to act on their own instead of waiting on consensus, which is not required on this board. With respect to (a), in the next case I might try removing some posts by editors who do not provide evidence that is directly relevant to the request.  Sandstein  09:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

In my limited and recent experience, I generally agree with Sandstein, but would remind those commenting here that not every admin that dips their toe into AE is an old hand, and some (like me) may wish to contribute while seeing "which way the wind blows" before getting stuck in too robustly on their own recognisance and then coming unstuck for using the tools. Obviously that won't be necessary forever (in my case). If we want more admins to take action on AE complaints, we need to allow them to learn by getting involved without expecting them to goose step through the place on the first day. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I hear you both, Sandstein and Peacemaker67. I don't see those problems as insurmountable, however. With respect to Sandstein's point, I think that a stricter word limit -say, 200 words max- for involved parties, and a requirement that uninvolved parties must provide diffs and keep it under 120 words (with comments that violate this subject to being immediately removed). A limit on the number of such comments could also be imposed: Say two involved comments and four uninvolved comments. Of course, one could appeal these rules to the admins for special circumstances.

Regarding Peacemaker's point, I think this sort of deescalation of formality itself might make it easier for new admins to get involved. If you look at the archives, there are very few (I couldn't find any, but I'm sure there's a few somewhere in there) cases where a large number of editors took one side and the admins took another. This suggests to me that common sense is the biggest factor in how these requests turn out. The end result is that the hurdle to getting involved here is largely one of confidence; new admins are fully equipped to help out, since they have common sense (else I'd hope they wouldn't have passed an RfA!), they just need a little encouragement.

Furthermore, while I found cases where the OP made a poor case, the admins leaned towards "no action", then another editor came along and made a much better case which galvanized the admins into imposing sanctions, this doesn't really speak to the need to keep the current level of formality. I'm not sure if this is policy or not (I suspect not, but I haven't memorized all our policy pages), it seems to me that a basic principle that is (and should be) at work in the subject of admins imposing sanctions is that it's better to err on the side of leniency. If someone makes a bad report in my suggested revamping, then it would get quickly closed. If subsequent reports didn't increase in quality drastically, then it becomes fairly clear that the problem lies with the reporting editor, not the reported editor.

Finally: Yes, I'm aware of the irony of proposing strict new rules for the purpose of reducing the level of formality. lol I'm quite aware. But I would like to point out that simply allowing one admin to act would actually be enough to institute this change: The first admin to come along and see a report could close it, with or without taking action, using their best judgement and the evidence presented in the complaint. We don't need extra rules to make this less formal, if the admins decide to start making a point of getting them closed as quickly as possible. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I recently attempted to seek enforcement on this Project Page related to a topic ban which was imposed By ARBCOM. I mistakenly believed that this was the correct place to make such a request, but as I found out, it is not and doing so was actually a violation of my topic ban. I don't believe the pink box makes this clear enough. I am suggesting that the pink box contains a sentence such as "Be aware this Project Page is not covered by WP:BANEX. If you have received a topic ban from ARBCOM and you discuss this here, you will be in violation of your topic ban. ...or words to that effect. This is not an attempt to change an existing policy, it is merely a suggestion to make it more clear to editors what they should/not be doing. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. This is the sort of grey area that results in admins having to pour carefully through diffs and complaints in order to determine if a posting here should result in sanctions against the OP, before the question of addressing the potential AE vio elucidated in the posting should be addressed. I believe this suggestion would cut down on such postings, and ease the admin workload. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a suggestion of adding a caveat or warning in response to an individual incident, and that's how we get instruction creep and giant unreadable boxes like this to begin with. I think the existing instructions are very clear as to what this board is for, and when to use dispute resolution or the clarification/amendment page. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

...that's how we get instruction creep and giant unreadable boxes like this to begin with. It's hard to argue with that, though I still think this is a good idea. However if you're right that this has only happened the one time (I figured it would be common, but haven't checked) then perhaps it's not worth it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary. See WP:CREEP. The banning rules are clear enough. If banned editors don't read them, they also won't read the fine print on this page.  Sandstein  16:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

AE admins look at each incoming complaint, and it may happen that what the filer is requesting is not allowed by WP:BANEX. The admin can suggest that the AE filer withdraw their complaint to avoid a sanction. (The linked case might be the one that DrChrissy is thinking of). It is then up to the filer to come to grips with their situation in time to avoid a problem. Adding text to the pink box doesn't seem necessary to me. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I should indicate why my confusion occurred and why I am suggesting just a single sentence be added to the pink box. If I wish to seek clarification or amendment to my ARBCOM-TB, I can go to WP:ARCA - on that page I can discuss my TB (relatively) freely. However, it appears I can not even mention my ARBCOM-TB at WP:AE, a page which I believe most editors would see as being very similar to ARCA and therefore under similar PaGs. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how things that are forbidden to file at AE by WP:BANEX become allowable at WP:ARCA. Do you have examples? You can discuss your own ban at many of these places but you are not expected to use these venues to make complaints about others under the same case. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've posted this at the talk page of WP: BAN, but since there is discussion here I'll ask it here. What would be the appropriate route for an editor to take if they believed a ban was being mis-used against them? Could bringing up such a complaint to ANI or AE or ARCA be considered necessary dispute resolution regarding a ban? -- Kyohyi ( talk) 18:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The only section of WP:BANEX that mentions making a request about someone else is the one about interaction bans. Unless you are under an interaction ban from someone else it appears that WP:BANEX gives you no leeway to mention anyone else in an appeal you make to a board. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

My only contention is that the examples in BANEX aren't written in a style that suggests the list is exhaustive. While those examples are exceptions, are they the only exceptions. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 18:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought it worth flagging up a single edit made today, in fact a few minutes ago, by Faebot, though the edit was not strictly a bot edit. I was unsure if the Commons image global replace method I was using would just fall over, and after my main account (Fæ) was not accepted as a login by the JAR GlobalReplace tool, I tried Faebot as it only includes ascii characters and was expecting another stage of prompts before all the changes were executed (the tool usage is not well documented as a work flow). The tool made 436 replacements globally ( log), of which 13 have been on the English Wikipedia where the technically incorrect/misleading image File:Alternate Coat of arms of Kenya.svg was being used and needed to be replaced. Unfortunately this tool is not as smart as the script I have used over the last couple of years, which itself fell over due to recent changes in bot account security necessitating a swap to OAuth logins. In my 'normal' script I can filter on Wiki language codes and would make the change under my main account rather than a bot account, this is the normal practice for global replacements when renaming Commons hosted images.

The change was requested by SJ at c:Commons:Village_pump#Advice_wanted:_Correcting_the_Kenyan_coat_of_arms. I am flagging the edit for comment, or in case anyone has questions about it, as Faebot was specifically unblocked by Arbcom to enable a different Commons task, which I have yet to return to sorting out, rather than for any other types of edit.

The change to content is valid, but using Faebot was a mistake on my part. I should have played around with the Unicode form of my main account and made the same edits from there if possible, or got another user to make the replacement. I have no plans to use Faebot for any other edits without going via the WP:BAG procedure, and though I have made several million edits using Faebot on other projects without giving anyone reason for complaint, this is the first time that Faebot has been used on the English Wikipedia for the last 6 years. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 10:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

How does this relate to WP:AE?  Sandstein  12:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The edits were technically a breach of remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ, because they did not fall within the exception created by Amendment: Remedy 2.1 (as they were edits by a second account, and not bot edits approved by BAG). WJBscribe (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this up. Just to note that I blocked the bot. This measure is designed just to be preventative to avoid similar mistakes happening in future given that Faebot is a global bot and we allow such bots to edit enwiki only to edit interwiki links. Once you sort out the task for which the bot was unblocked and gain any necessary local approval from BAG, the bot can be unblocked to carry out that task. WJBscribe (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll refer to this discussion if an unblock becomes relevant. -- Fæ ( talk) 14:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom is currently considering merging the logs of sanctions imposed as part of a case remedy (such as an ArbCom imposed TBAN) with the centralised discretionary sanctions log. Before I move past drafting a motion to do that, I'd like to get some opinions from the people it will mostly affect, i.e. admins working in AE. So, thoughts on having one central log for all AE actions (DS and non-DS)...? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Pining some other admins who've closed requests recently @ WJBscribe, Bishonen, NeilN, Lankiveil, Regentspark, Lord Roem, and Coffee:. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems fine. If you do so, maybe a term could be introduced like 'case remedy sanctions' that would make the difference from discretionary sanctions easier to follow. And if the committee will be making a motion about the WP:DSLOG, can you consider undoing the 'courtesy blanking' of 2011 and earlier? This makes it tedious to search for user names to find out if they have ever been sanctioned before. Notice that this version of the 2008 page (hidden from Wikipedia search due to the courtesy blanking) has maybe 200 entries, including many users who are still active and several pages that are still the subject of dispute. EdJohnston ( talk) 06:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea Ed. I'm thinking some guidance for admins adding entries to the page might be developed (outside of the motion) which could include a request/requirement to identify remedy which authorised the sanction (e.g. remedy number, "as a DS" or "Username's ArbCom TBAN"). Ah yes, the blanking; I'll suggest it, but no guarantees. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, and I agree with Ed about the blanking.  Sandstein  12:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the more centralized the better. It would make them easier to log and easier to find. Pinging RegentsPark for you. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
• Support, seems sensible to keep everything in the one place. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
• I am fully in favor of this proposal. (The currently separated system has always made little sense to me.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Good idea. The current structure is confusing. The downside is that expired sanctions would need to be archived in an accessible format otherwise the log will get unwieldy. Ideally, of course, some sort of database of active and inactive sanctions would be even better but I'm not techie enough to know if that's even a possibility. -- regentspark ( comment) 13:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for pinging me! Agree with the others, sounds good, provided the formatting is clear. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 19:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm less involved in AE than the others, but grouping these together in one place makes sense to me. WJBscribe (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A motion has been proposed that would modify the method used for logging Arbitration Enforcement sanctions

The motion can be reviewed and commented upon here

Discussion is invited from all interested parties.

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias ( T)( C) 21:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if this is not the proper method to do this, but is it normal procedure to close an enforcement request within 42 minutes of its being posted, with little discussion? 331dot ( talk) 22:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, only one editor got a chance to comment. Not saying it's an inappropriate close, but it is peculiar the level of haste involved. El_C 22:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I've moved this thread to the talk page.  Sandstein  22:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

331dot, in reply to your question, there is no set time for how long a request stays open. Complicated cases may stay open longer than clear-cut ones. Because this is not a consensus-based process, no particular amount or duration of discussion is required. For me, what matters is that the editor at which the request is directed has a chance to respond. That having been the case here, I considered that this was a very easy and obvious case to close and therefore decided to take action at once.  Sandstein  22:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. 331dot ( talk) 22:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I would respectfully ask if removing talk page access for the entire month is necessary; it has been suggested on his talk page by someone else that a week (of talk page access removal) might be sufficient. 331dot ( talk) 22:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) @ Sandstein: I don't like the idea of fully protecting TRM's talk page immediately after he responded to a block notice that was critical of you. I acknowledge that ArbCom permitted the "enforcing administrator ... [to] fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block," but I really don't like that stipulation of the remedy. It opens the door for the blocking administrator to tighten a block of TRM in response to comments made directly towards the admin in question. If TRM's talk page access needs to be revoked, or if his talk page does need to be fully protected, then I think the decision to do so should be left to a separate, uninvolved administrator. -- Dylan620 ^{( I'm all ears)} 22:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not one likes the remedy, it clearly applies in this case. Concerns about the remedy should be addressed to ArbCom. I do not think that we should devote a lot of our limited time to fine-tune sanctions applying to problem editors, and therefore I do not intend to amend the protection duration. This concludes my discussion of this sanction, except in the case of an appeal by the sanctioned editor themself.  Sandstein  23:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Except the editor cannot file an appeal while their page remains protected—that's the point behind lifting it in a week. El_C 23:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm copying the following comment made to the page to this talk page. 331dot ( talk) 01:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if anybody cares, but the blocking admin seems to have blocked the talkpage after handing out the ban. I am sure that is excessive by any reasonable measurement. Nergaal ( talk) 23:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@ Sandstein: I know your block was in good faith, but I wanted to chime in and say I disagree with it. I would have liked to see other people contribute to the request before closing it. There was no urgency in handing the block and several other editors seem to agree that it wasn't that "easy and obvious". Isa ( talk) 04:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Isanae, thank you for your feedback. By design, AE actions do not require discussion, because they are unilateral and any discussion that was necessary took place in the context of the original case. I dislike long discussions about AE requests because they often turn into a pointless relitigation of the case. I therefore prefer to close AE requests as quickly as possible. Any discussion about the action can then occur in the context of an appeal (which here remains possible per e-mail).  Sandstein  06:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

An appeal filed in public has its benefits—as opposed to one undertaken in private, which may suffer from limited input. El_C 06:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that any appeal received per e-mail (by anybody) should be posted to AE because that is the venue for appeal per the remedy. That would make the appeal public in any case.  Sandstein  06:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I see. Point taken. Addendum: I still prefer the appeal to be submitted by him on his talk page first—the outcome might be the same, it just feels more intuitive. El_C 06:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If AE cases create, by default, a predefined section where the "accused" can make a statement, surely there is an assumption that enough time should be allowed for that to happen? 42 minutes is not enough time by any reasonable standards. Surely it should be at least 20 hours to allow for time differences, unless the "accused" is seen to be actively editing elsewhere within that time. If, according to Sandstein, "By design, AE actions do not require discussion" then why is there, by design, a predefined section inviting discussion? Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 21:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the activity of a new editor who is making edits connected with the Israel/Palestine conflict despite not meeting the 30/500 rule. What steps need to be taken to ensure proper procedure here? I'm not aware that the editor has had proper notification of the sanction; I've informed him about it ( [4]), but does it need to be done by other than a regular editor? The editor is 238-Gdn; the main article of interest is Yitzchak Ginsburgh, and the material in question relates to Ginsburgh's teachings about Baruch Goldstein (e.g. [5]), as well as comments made after some violent incidents in the West Bank (e.g. [6]). Does an admin have to log a notification here for it to be valid? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You can use the discretionary sanctions alert template on their talkpage: {{subst:alert|a-i}}. See this page for details. Kingsindian  ♝  ♚ 12:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks -- I've done that. I'm not sure if notification re "discretionary sanctions" counts as a required notification re the 50/300 rule, though -- my sense is that those are different animals. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 12:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

An arbitration motion has been proposed that would amend the discretionary sanctions procedure by moving some of those provisions into the Committee's arbitration enforcement policy to standardise enforcement of all Committee and discretionary sanctions. The community is encouraged to reviewed and commented on the motion here. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that an editor or several editors might have been editing the United Kingdom General Election 2017 page with an obviously pro- Liberal Democrats (UK) slant or angle with his or their own agreed or agreed-amongst-themselves "approved version", especially United Kingdom General Election 2017#Other politicians, which reads awfully like employees or professional activists inside Liberal Democrats (UK) central office in London deliberately playing down the anti-Antisemitism of their former MP and candidate David Ward (and the Guardian in the UK is well known as a pro-Labour AND a pro-LibDem newspaper, both generally and especially in this 2017 UK General Election, and I think he is or they are probably being deliberately mischievous and disingenuous here by using the Guardian source to back up his or their otherwise blatantly pro-LibDem (and "minor"-Antisemitism-excusing) bias). -- 87.102.116.36 ( talk) 15:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

[7] -- 87.102.116.36 ( talk) 15:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss content disputes. If you believe that someone has violated an arbitration remedy, please file as indicated on the actual enforcement page. Otherwise, please bring up your concerns at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2017. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Noting here that I just modified it so that it uses the standard Template:Edit filter warning. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm re-asking this [8]. Seriously, the situation is a bit out of control. Newly created, throw away accounts, pop into these articles, edit war, break 1RR and then either disappear to be replaced by new ones or get banned (but so what? Just create a new one). There really needs to be an exemption for reverting accounts less than, say, two months old or with fewer than 100 edits.

Where do I raise this proposal/amendment? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Volunteer Marek, insofar as you're asking for an exception/amendment to DS on a topic broadly, then this is your best bet. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 03:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether editors here can clarify this, or whether I need to submit a forma clarification request. Please advise.

An IP removed some cited information from an article covered by WP:ARBPIA. I reverted this, and the IP reverted my edit. Under normal circumstances, I would be able to again revert, since edits to enforce the general sanction are exempt from the 1RR restriction. However, in the meantime an extended confirmed editor had removed the citation itself, which the IP had left in the article. How can I respond to this? I cannot restore the text with the citation, since this would be a second revert, and not exempt from the restriction. However, if I just revert the IP editor, which I believe I am permitted to do, then I will be adding contentious information without a citation.

The article in question is Deir Yassin, and the relevant edits can be seen in the article history. RolandR ( talk) 11:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The time when you reverted the IP doesn't count as a revert for the purpose of 1RR. I believe that's the most reasonable interpretation of the rule. So reinserting the text together with its source would be the first revert that counts. (I answered without looking at the article.) Zero ^talk 12:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator – or the edit who wrote – remove this personal attack as Sagecandor didn't provide any diffs for their accusations. Politrukki ( talk) 17:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not a personal attack. A statement about the nature of the filing of the case itself. DIFF LINKS provided at DIFF LINK. Sagecandor ( talk) 17:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It’s an opinion related to the filing, not a PA. Common here. Objective3000 ( talk) 17:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Objective3000:Thank you. Sagecandor ( talk) 17:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

So, apparently the archives of this page were lost in limbo; despite the (collapsed) note in the archivebox, it showed that none existed. I've tracked down the problem (automated bot deletion of an accidentally broken redirect) and restored what needed to be restored. I'm also turning on automated archiving as per normal procedure (I've set it to 60d which is standard for this kind of slower venue I guess). ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 19:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Automatic archival has now successfully resumed. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 13:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Although there is a big pink box on the enforcement page noting a limit on the length of comments, the instructions (both template above edit box and hidden text appearing in the edit box) after clicking the button "Click here to add a new enforcement request" for submitting a request do not reference any limit. For the sake of clarity for those not familiar with this process, the instructions after clicking the link should include the necessary steps and instructions. AHeneen ( talk) 18:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• This seems fair and uncontroversial (better to repeat something than risk it being unseen). I've added the directive to both the editnotice and the preloaded text. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 04:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I notice that Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal includes this text:

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

However, the rules to which it links says that a consensus of uninvolved administrators is required at AE or a consensus of uninvolved editors at AN. Would anyone object to me modifying the template along the lines of Special:Diff/791144647? GoldenRing ( talk) 12:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

AE was supposed to take account of uninvolved editors but has morphed over time to reflect a disdain for the views of non-admins and to accept unilateral action even in face of uninvolved admin consensus. If you really want to provide accurate information, it's worth advising considering which out of AN and AE is likely the more hostile to any particular appeal. EdChem ( talk) 14:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to get a consensus of editors (admin and not), you can always appeal any AE action at WP:AN. If you appeal at WP:AE, you are choosing to only have admin make the decision, just by how AE is set up. Personally, if I had an indef tban at WP:AE and 6 months later I wanted to appeal it (not overturn the decision), I would choose WP:AE over WP:AN as I think the odds are much better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never heard of Naomi Klein, but I was curious to see if I could trace down the source for the alleged "the most democratic country in the Western hemisphere" quote. It appears that this quote is not from Klein, but from an article published by The Nation. Her only connection to this article that I can see is that she Tweeted it. [9] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team would like to build and improve tools to support the work done by contributors who set, monitor, and enforce editing restrictions on Wikipedia, as well as building systems that make it easier for users under a restriction to avoid the temptation of violating a sanction and remain constructive contributors.

You are invited to participate in a discussion that documents the current problems with using editing restrictions and details possible tech solutions that can be developed by the Anti-harassment tools team. The discussion will be used to prioritize the development and improvement of tools and features.

For the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 15:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Linda Sarsour ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arbitration sanctions imposed on articles related to the Arab-Israel conflict have been added to talk page at Linda Sarsour. [10] Does this article properly warrant being covered by such sanctions? I'm dubious. If so, then a host of persons, perhaps thousands, will be covered. Perhaps they should be, but I wanted to be clear. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding pages requires them to be logged as an AE sanction by the administrator that imposed the sanction. Then, those admins are the proper place to ask questions. If they aren't logged on the AE/DS log by an admin, the notice can be removed as just placing the notice doesn't cut it. -- DHeyward ( talk) 21:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward Thanks for your response. To clarify, do you mean it needs to be logged as an AE sanction before the notice is placed? Where would the log be for Arab-Israel arbitration sanctions. I'm not clear. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Coffee has placed the article under EC protection and logged the action in WP:DSLOG. If you disagree that it's an I/P article, you could ask Coffee and if necessary appeal at WP:AE. In my own opinion it's reasonable to be considered ARBPIA. She is a supporter of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and has been in the news due to that support. Clearly BDS is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You could also argue that Sarsour's article falls under WP:ARBAP2. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The log is at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Palestine-Israel articles. The article Linda Sarsour was added by User:Coffee but it appears the notice was placed by someone else before he added it. Coffee is responsible for putting the page under DS and you would need to discuss with him first. -- DHeyward ( talk) 15:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate the responses, I just wanted to find out what the procedure is in such things for future reference. I believe that once I placed such a notice on a page (I forget which one), but it was not logged in anywhere. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The tag Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement was placed on the talk page by User:Huldra on 21 December. Since the presence of this tag causes 1RR to become active for the whole page, it's my opinion that such tags should only be placed by admins. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that Coffee has logged his EC protection in DSLOG I think the ARBPIA talk page banner ought to remain, regardless of the general rule. The status of the page (whether ARBPIA or not) is now up to Coffee, unless it is appealed. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, ok, but that is against what is common practice in the area. Common practice is that any editor (not only admins) can place a notice on a page, typically to inform newbies on that page (I did it to inform User:Bellezzasolo). Say, look at User:Shrike/ARBPIA which I believe lists articles which has a label on it, mostly placed by non admins.

Also, unknown to me, admin Vanamonde93 had just asked for protection earlier of the Linda Sarsour article. When 2 admins independently of me came to the same result as me, then I don’t think I was that far off.

But I agree that this is a matter which might need to be clarified. Perhaps a request at WP:ARCA is due? Regards, Huldra ( talk) 20:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

PS, and now a 3rd admin, Missvain, has fully protected the article, Huldra ( talk) 22:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Unclear why ARCA would be needed until such time as there is a big disagreement, which not even admins agree on. In the past there has been a relaxed attitude to who can place the templates, but the template didn't formerly contain such explicit language about sanctions on the particular page. Whoever places the template is now imposing a page-level sanction. Or appears to be. While I'm here I wish the autosign function was added to the template so we could figure out who placed it. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've also seen admins forget to add the template. I think the community does a fairly good job of removing the templates when they are added improperly. The problem I have encountered more often is pages that should have been templated but weren't. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 23:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

When I place such a template on a talk page, I don't see it as me imposing a sanction, rather as a note making everyone aware that arb.com have placed the article under sanctions. Most of the articles I edit are under arb.com sanctions, say, each and every one of the articles in Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. But very few of those articles actually have a template on their talk page. Again, if I put a template there, it is not me imposing any sanction, rather me making everyone (read: newbies) clear that arb.com has put the article under sanctions. Of course, me placing a template on the talk page doesn't physically prevent any editor from editing the page, only an admin, like above, Coffee, can do that by adding pp-30-500 to the page. (Or fully protect it, as Missvain just did) Huldra ( talk) 23:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

But ArbCom didn't put the article under discretionary sanction. Rather they authorized discretionary sanctions when an admin has decided, in their discretion, to add them. Making people aware of possible sanctions is okay but implying that a page is already under discretionary sanctions is incorrect unless an admin has logged it with the sanction they are imposing. The instruction regarding logging of page level sanctions is pretty clear. -- DHeyward ( talk) 22:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Arb.com placed all articles in the area, broadly construed, under sanctions. As I said, it is long term practice that non admin place these templates. I have never had any template I have added discussed before, as I have added them only to what I see as obvious articles under ARBPIA.

I see it was discussed above, in July/August this year, but I cannot see any decision that non admins cannot label any talk page?

If, in the future, only admins are allowed to place a template on a talk page, it will massively increase the workload of admins. They would have to get involved each and every time a new ARBPIA article become a contested area. That non admins can make other editors, (mostly newbies), aware of the rules in the area, have saved lots of admin time.

This does start to look like a case for ARCA. Huldra ( talk) 22:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You can notify editors of the arbcom decision. That's done all the time usually on their talk page. But if you are trying to imply that that a page is under a specific sanction, say 1RR or extended confirmed, that's not okay. The rules for page level sanctions are clear [11]. Notices that put the 1RR warning on the edit page or even just say 1RR on the talk page must be a logged sanction and should be removed if an admin has not created that sanction. In short, the only purpose of a non-admin placing a notice on a talk page is for notification. I doubt that notification would be sufficient under the requirements for DS notice which makes the effort rather pointless. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

comment Having these placed on non-DS logged pages by non admins is not harmless. For istance see AE involving Ali Khamenei in which all involved thought (wrongly per AE outcome) this was 1RR due to a talk page notice. Having the notice on a page makes one assume almost everything on that article is under ARBPIA. Icewhiz ( talk) 23:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Everything can be misused, but I repeat, no-one has ever challenged me for putting a template on a talk page before, and in this case, 3 independent admins have supported the action. Having said that, and in reply to DHeyward: I don't get your opinion to match with what was said above, on this page? Also, I have looked at this as a 2 tier structure: non admin can warn anyone (with a template, on the talk page) that this is an article under ARBPIA sanction. Obviously, this will not physically stop anyone from editing the article (or even from removing the template.) Only admins can do that, by adding pp-30-500 to the page, and logging the sanction. Now, this 2 tier structure have actually worked reasonably well, most people when they see such a template stop....and discuss. Why change it? (Yes, I realise, that in order to sanction anyone, they will also have to be notified on their talk page, etc, etc. But when I put a template on an article talk page, it is NOT to sanction anyone, but ..mostly, like in this case, to inform newbies that they should not be editing the article) Huldra ( talk) 23:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The "discussion" above is some of the worst bureaucratic bullshit I've seen. Articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are subject to sanctions, but only an administrator may put the notice on the talk page? BULLSHIT! The sanctions apply whether an editor is aware of them or not, so any editor who notifies her or his fellow editors of the sanctions is performing a public good. Such behavior ought to be encouraged, not outlawed. Administrators would do well to actually, you know, edit the encyclopedia once in a while. —  MShabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 02:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Malik is quite correct and DHeyward is quite incorrect. DHeyward's error is to confuse once-off sanctions that uninvolved admins are permitted to impose with topic-wide sanctions that ArbCom has imposed already. Look at the wording: it says "Each editor is limited..." not "Uninvolved admins can decide that each editor is limited...". It even says that involved ordinary editors can enforce the sanction by reverting. As Huldra said, politely informing other editors that sanctions are in place (provided they really are) is a Good Thing and should be encouraged. Zero ^talk 03:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Only page restrictions placed under discretionary sanctions must be logged at the discretionary sanctions log. The four sanctions on {{ Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} are not discretionary sanctions. They are ArbCom remedies. They are active on all pages in the topic area with no need to log or use the template. Use of the template is encouraged to make editors aware of the sanction. Any editor, including non-admins, may place that template. This is not the same as placing templates that apply page restrictions that did not exist before (e.g. {{ American politics AE}}) because those sanctions are discretionary sanctions that only exist on a page if an admin places them and logs appropriately. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 03:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As a note on terminology, all pages within a topic area for which discretionary sanctions are authorized are considered to be "under discretionary sanctions". It does not require further action or logging before discretionary sanctions are "active" on any particular article. Separately, admins can place page restrictions as one of many discretionary sanction options. If they do, then the page would be subject to 1RR, consensus required, or whatever other page restriction was put in place. Being "under discretionary sanctions" merely means that an uninvolved administrator can sanction editors who are behaving disruptively subject to the rules at WP:AC/DS. Entirely separate from discretionary sanctions, the entire ARBPIA topic area is under 1RR from an ArbCom remedy. That applies to all pages, with no logging needed. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 03:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks User:BU Rob13 for the clarification. I think some of the problem here was that User:DHeyward is, AFAIK, more accustomed to editing the American policy pages...AFAIK, the sanctions applying to those pages are somewhat different from the ARBPIA area. Huldra ( talk) 23:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
      • The issue is that the Sarsour page is not a page where sanctions apply. Her page is not about the IP conflict, even though one section of her page might be. We should not be adding pages to the sanction just because one section might be there. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Take that up with the 3 different admins who have supported it, Huldra ( talk) 23:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Is your talk page under ARBPIA sanctions? I have tried time and time to reason with admins in placing articles under sanctions when it shouldn't. And I am taking it up, I posted on this page in a discussion on the topic. Should we go now and tag 80% of the articles because they might be "broadly construed" as being part of the conflict? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
            • User:Sir Joseph My talk page is not under ARBPIA sanction, it is just permanently semi protected due to an enormous amount of death and rape-threaths on my user-page. Any user page can be protected this way, but it normally only happen to admins, vandal fighters, and those of us who are not considered pro Israeli enough. And you are a bit out of process, all this has been discussed Ad nauseam at the various WP:ARBPIAs. Huldra ( talk) 20:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
              • Your talk page should have the banner and ECP. According to your logic, a good chunk of your talk page is about the IP conflict and as such should be restricted to ARBPIA approved editors. I will ignore your assumption of bad faith of editors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
                • Huh? What bad faith? (If you refer to the not pro Israeli enough comment, you must know I am perfectly aware of who has committed most of those offences, our old darling friend..) Huldra ( talk) 21:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
                  • So that's one person. My page was vandalized as well, but I am not going to paint entire segment of editors as being part of that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
                    • Huh? User:Sir Joseph: I repeat: What bad faith? I am certainly not "paint[ing] entire segment of editors as being part of that". But there are two, or a few more people with.....serious..eh, issues out there, including the above mentioned and this charmer. They are mostly blocked on sight. Obviously they are not among our regular, unbanned editors. BTW, some of us....not so pro-Israeli editors... dream of the day when we had only being vandalised once (instead of hundreds, or thousands of times.) My userpage is protected not only on en.wp, the problems are also on meta, commons, and de.wp...and who knowns where it pops up next. BTW, I am lobbying for a global protect. Again, Sir Joseph: you have absolutely no idea. Have you ever had some vandal making usernames like User:Sir Joseph_the anti-Śemite fucked by multiple camel dicks? No? Try this. Or User:Sir Joseph's severed, rotting head? No? Try this Or User:Sir JosephDoesBadStuffToChildren? No? Try this. So yeah, I think my user page will stay protected for the forseeable future. Huldra ( talk) 23:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• The gist of all of this is at ARCA currently. I'll try to summarize what I think is occurring. 1) editors must be made aware of discretionary sanction. Article talk page notices are insufficient. 2). Discretionary sanctions imposed on an article must be logged per the instructions. Vagueness is not okay. If there is any doubt as to whether an article is under sanction or whether an editor is properly notified, it is improper to impose an AE sanction on them. It's too easy to clarify to operate under a cloud of confusion. An editor that can't enforce an AE sanction doesn't have the ability to place articles under the AE umbrella. It's not clear at all that the Sarsour article is inherently covered by ARBPIA and it would require an admin to enforce 1RR or implement extended/confirmed. Merely placing the notice on the page is insufficient warning to editors. Without logging, it would be impossible to track when appeals have been granted (i.e. if consensus of uninvolved admins removes an article from ARBPIA jurisdiction, that's an AE action that needs to be logged because it would require consensus to re-add it, not just the passing whim of an editor). Declaring a page as falling under the ARBPIA umbrella is an AE/DS action that must be logged and tracked if only to determine the criteria for removal. Without a log or AE action, any editor or admin would be free to undo it. -- DHeyward ( talk) 02:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please read WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions, WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, and WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. All three apply to all pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed, not just those designated and logged by an administrator. This has been pointed out to you by three editors now, yet you persist in repeating your error. —  MShabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 14:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Right, it applies to pages related, not just those pages that might have some content on the page related to the IP conflict. Otherwise, every page on Wikipedia should be tagged because everything can be broadly construed as being part of the IP conflict. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry shaby, but I can read and the issue isn't the ARBCOM case, it's deciding which articles are covered. That is the issue at every article. If an editor comes along and tags Albert Einstein with the ARBPIA tag because they think he's covered, that can be disputed. The tag can be removed. As long as article sanctions are not logged, they aren't protected by the rules governing AE DS. I've done it before when zealidiots have gotten carried away and guess what? It works exactly that way. You're not getting it if you think writing it down is the same thing as enforcement. Until an admin puts the page under 500/30 through the page protection process, your little warning means as exactly nothing. If they don't log it, another admin can remove that protection as only the logged actions can be reviewed as an unequivocal AE action protected by consensus at AE or ANI. Get a clue as to how things work instead of your magic unicorn editor theory. -- DHeyward ( talk) 16:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• You can remove the notice, I suppose. You can also be sanctioned if you remove a notice on an article that is covered by discretionary sanctions, as it's disruption in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 17:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Again, all articles on Wikipedia are associated with the IP conflict. Do we really want to tag all articles just because one section might be about the IP conflict? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Sure, Rob, but it would be logged and tagged by an admin long before that happens. Think of what's available: two non-admins edit warring over the applicability of a tag will result in an admin either agreeing it's covered and officially logging it or agreeing it's not covered and keeping the tag off (and possibly even logging the tag removal as an AE action). There's really no rational outcome where an unlogged DS becomes enforceable if status of the article is questioned. It's too easy to log them and remove the uncertainty rather than trying to enforce a sanction without logging the restriction. Shaby argues below that the article on Albert Einstein is covered though there are no tags or restrictions. Would you support a 1 year block on an editor that is topic banned from PIA articles for adding information on general relativity? Shabby apparently believes that such a block would be a valid AE sanction with no additional notice or opportunity to correct or dispute the relevance of the arbcom case to the article. Because it appears obvious to him that it is covered. It's a great example as to why we don't allow it in practice. -- DHeyward ( talk) 17:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Again, I must repeat, there is no logging of the applicability of discretionary sanctions. In ARBPIA, there is logging of ECP protections taken as AE actions, but that is separate as it involves an actual admin action (protection). A block of an editor violating their topic ban would certainly be valid if they have previously been warned on the meaning of "broadly construed". An article that contains substantial information related to the I-P conflict is within the topic area. (As an aside, since all AE actions should be preventative, most admins do not protect an article until a non-extendedconfirmed editor has actually editted it. It is very possible for such an article to be under discretionary sanctions but not protected.) ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 18:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• ( edit conflict) Evidently you can't read. If Albert Einstein includes a section about his involvement in the Zionist movement or his opposition to the Revisionists, it absolutely is covered by ARBPIA. (Bad example, bro.) Please, just acknowledge that you made a mistake and STFU. —  MShabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 17:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, we shouldn't be tagging articles just because one section might be covered, and again, please try to remain civil. I believe this was discussed at ARBCOM already, where an article is not tagged or placed under sanctions merely for having a section under the ARBPIA area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note that discretionary sanctions are "broadly construed", which includes pages with sections on the IP conflict. The 500/30 restriction is "reasonably construed", which has previously been interpreted to be less broad. There do exist pages that are broadly construed but not reasonably construed to be in the topic area. This is probably one of them. The discretionary sanctions are likely active (especially surrounding edits to that section), but it should not be protected. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 18:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This is getting overly complicated, surely? Linda Sarsour is an activist of Palestinian descent. Any person with that profile has their page subject to repeated smearing. Every editor in the I/P area knows that this is the norm, and we are talking of several people with a collective 30-40 odd years of editing that area. It is self-evident that the page comes under those sanctions. Nishidani ( talk) 18:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• And yet this article is ECP protected. Every article on Wikipedia can be turned into an IP conflict article. We should not be locking down articles. We should strive to have articles as open as possible and only when necessary lock it down. And I also note that most of Sarsour's page is not about the IP area but of her other activities. I also note that it is extremely offensive and ABF to state that if people post critical stuff about her it's "smearing." Critical stuff is posted about her because she does and says things that warrant criticism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Challenge it at AE if you disagree; note that discretionary sanctions can be used to ECP something in the broad topic area if it's being disrupted. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 20:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Every article on Wikipedia can be turned into an IP conflict article.

That superultrahyperbole deserves the gauntlet, and a bitcoin if you can turn Gadubanud into an IP conflict article. Nishidani ( talk) 20:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ghil'ad Zuckermann? Icewhiz ( talk) 20:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see why you are interested in editing Gadubanud, a place once pristine which had a massacre and was taken over by colonialists. To say the aborigines of Australia share a common ground with the Palestinians is not a stretch. One needs to learn the history of dear old Gadubanud and hold steadfast in the face of Israeli colonialism so that the Palestinians don't suffer the same fate. For more information, see [12] or [13] or [14] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

So I get to keep my bitcoin. Neither of you can make a connection with the article, which means SJ's hyperbole explodes. As to Zuckermann, he had nothing to do with the Gadubanud. He teaches the Barngarla. Nishidani ( talk) 21:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this whole question about templating the Sarsour article is...weird. (The question of clarifying discretionary sanctions versus other sanction is interesting though, thank you User:BU Rob13) The only two editors I have noticed regularly templates IP talk pages, is Shrike and Myself. Now, Shrike and I (as most of you know), hardly agree about anything, but I have no problem when he templates, say: Council for the National Interest here, A land without a people for a people without a land here, Israel and state-sponsored terrorism, here, The Left's Jewish Problem, here Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne here, Aishiyeh massacre here, Al-Quds here ‎(This was found just looking through his latest 100 edits.) Any editor could of course remove a template I (or Shrike) put on a talk page (It has never happened to me, but if it did, I seriously hope I would not be so imbecile as to edit war about it.) I view these templates as courtesy to newbies, if not newbies to WP, then at least newbies in the IP area. Huldra ( talk) 21:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally there is an article (paywalled) in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz this morning about the dispute on the Linda Sarsour page. Editors Icewhiz, Seraphim System, E.M. Gregory, Huldra and Sangdeboeuf are mentioned. The article treats it as an Israel-Palestine dispute. My opinion on whether the article falls under ARBPIA is that it doesn't actually matter since any uninvolved administrator is free to impose similar types of restrictions on the page anyway. Zero ^talk 23:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Lol, no Omer Benjakob: I did not want the allegations both places as a "compromise"...I wanted it neither place. (Also, personally Im not a great fan of neither Sarsour nor Wiesel....but fair is fair.) Huldra ( talk) 23:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Huldra: - please refrain from WP:OR. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Read the WP:OR for once. As many editors have to be repeatedly reminded, this does not apply to arguments on a talk page. Nishidani ( talk) 08:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that drives me nuts. Everything we do on talk pages is OR. That's what they're for: analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis of what everyone knows, thinks, can find in sources, can observe as a practicality matter, can diff from past history, fervently proposes or opposes, etc., etc., etc., to help us come to a consensus about something.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I've had a few editors tell me that they find the current templates unclear in that it isn't easy to find what pages are actually covered.

At the moment we have two styles: The default is a concise, bold-print message:

{{ Ds/talk notice|tpm|brief}} gives:

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Alternatively there is a more wordy and detailed message:

{{ Ds/talk notice|saq|long}} gives: Error: The code letter saq for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Experienced editors and others with good eyesight will probably realise they have to click on the word 'subject' in the first one and 'permitted' in the second one to get to the Final decision, which is itself wordy and full of information that many editors won't want to read, and it isn't immediately obvious which pages are covered.

In March I asked the clerks if they could create something more reader-friendly and Kevin wrote Template:Ds/talk notice/sandbox which changes these to:

Pages related to [[#Final decision|]], including the attached page, are subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully.

Error: The code letter for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Error: The code letter for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

We (the Committee) are posting this here as probably the best place to garner comments from those most involved with the process. Do people like this, and do they have any tweaks to suggest?

I myself feel that the long version should be the default, rather than the short version which is the current default. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• There was recently confusion of the wording "is subject to", as the nuance between "ArbCom has authorized the potential use of DS" and "there are active sanctions" isn't properly resolved by "is subject to". How about "Discretionary sanctions can be applied to..."?

The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Commitee for pages related to Some Bullshit™, including this one. Please edit carefully.

I'm open to other suggestion but I don't think we should sacrifice clarity for brevity. I agree that it should default to the long version. The short verion can be used on articles with overloaded headers (such as ones with active DS sanctions). ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 12:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete these page templates Rather than fix the page templates, I've long thought they should be deleted, because they serve no useful purpose and imposing DS based on them violates the DS procedures. Under the new system, DS can only be imposed if an editor is has actual "awareness" DS applies. The rules explicitly define how we measure "awareness". Per those instructions, page templates do not meet the "awareness" pre-condition necessary to impose DS. Moreover, this is a failed proposal. During the redesign, one ostensible reason for changing the DS notice from a fault-implied/badge of shame warning to a no-faul/FYI comment was to de-stigmatize the giving of notice. I argued strongly that the best way to do this was through ubiquity... give everyone in the subject area the same notice the moment they arrive. I thought we could do that with page templates connected to a bot programmed to template users at their talk page. This idea was shot down, in part due to the scenario that a given edit might be topical even though it appears on t a page which is not (e.g., comments about gun control on the Tea Party pages). Since under the current rules page templates are insufficient to give an editor "awareness" for purpose of imposing DS, I'd like to see them just be deleted. Alternatively, the simplest thing to do is to revise them so they mirror exactly the template that would be posted on an editors talk page. That way, there is only one thing to maintain over time. In addition, since we are able to identify key pages for a page notice, it should be a simple matter of programming to tie these notices to a bot that would dish out one subject matter alert every 12 months for people editing those pages and talk pages. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. According to my understanding of the current rules, editors need to be individually notified on their talk pages before discretionary sanctions against them are possible. Talk page templates can't do that. They are therefore superfluous and should be deleted.  Sandstein  12:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think this view might ignore some subtleties of the user experience. While a pre-warning isn't required by the procedure, it could still have a moderating or deterring effect on some who read it. AGK [•] 20:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• What about an argument by new users that I didn't know that the page belong to DS area especially in border cases.-- Shrike ( talk) 13:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Either they know because they received a talk page alert, or they should be issues a talk page alert. According to DS rules, that's the only "awareness" marker than counts. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 13:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

One may say Hadera don't belong to I/P conflict because it doesn't have template and its just article about city in Israel and most of the material is not about a conflict. Could AE case could be filed against a user for editing this article?-- Shrike ( talk) 13:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course an AE case could be filed, and over the course of the AE case one of the elements that would need examination will ve whether AE is even applicable. Just like everything else, stuff can be discussed. I'll note that there is also an open ARCA currently to add in the DS instructions exactly how and where to "dispute" the inclusion of an article under a specific DS topic area (such as "should Hadera full under ARBIP"), and the result will probably be a discussion at AE anyways. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 13:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I would want to know if something is under discretionary sanctions or not--for new editors this is not a bad thing. Drmies ( talk) 20:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. It isn't about whether or not we get to ban hammer them, it is about the editor: giving them a tool to know it is under special protection. It also gives editors on that talk page something to point to easily to refer those new users. It isn't about allowing excuses, it's about giving information in the easiest way possible, and the talk page banner does that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If page templates remain as an FYI/reminder sort of thing they should also have a link to the "awareness" criteria and text that saying more or less do not call this banner to new editors' attention. Instead, use the usertalk template designed for that purpose NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's be honest with ourselves, the usertalk template is not typically used as a friendly gesture to help a new user. It is most commonly used as a warning and because the person leaving the template is preparing (perhaps threatening) to take the recipient to AE, and the template is proof of prior notification. It can be used for many reasons, but most commonly it is used as a shot across the bow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I leave notices all the time, and I follow up with a subsection for discussion, and in the subsection I point out the notice is FYI and that I also gave the same notice to myself. Per the original goal of the overhaul, our intention is to destigmatize the notice. So I treat them that way, and I expect others who are in the know to AGF when I do that and also pull on the oars for prevention of problems. If others in the know can not or will not do that, then the battle mentality may reside in the minds of experienced eds as well as newbies. And I'm not implying that anyone in this conversation does this, just speaking in the abstract. We have the B&W text that says these things are FYI. Everyone should treat them as such, whether they are giving them, getting them, or are a third party observing them being given. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that changing the templates as suggested (including the suggestion from Salvidrim!) is a good idea. I also agree that adding something about the awareness criteria is also a good idea (maybe link in the brief version and a sentence or two in the long version). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • These sounds like good ideas. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Something like:

The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Commitee for pages related to Some Bullshit™, including this page. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted uninvolved Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on editors of pages related to Some Bullshit™, including this page. As long as the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

Hm? (adding pings: Doug Weller, Callanecc, L235). ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks great In addition, destigmatization of the DS Alert notice would be enhanced if everyone editing pages with this tag triggers code on the server that automatically templates their talk page with DS Alert if there is no record of a prior alert in the prior twelve months. Since even an FYI no-fault template is annoying, we may want to add a threshold such as the number of bytes in an edit, or more than just one or two edits. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with the changes. I would maybe copy-edit down some of the wording of the long-form notice. "Wikipedia" is already implied when referring to administrators. "On editors of pages" is an awkward sentence. It implies belonging but it's not clear how that's established, whether through affiliation (to a newcomer), or simply by the act of editing the article (which is what we mean). I'd also propose to change the last sentence to the following, "Provided the awareness criteria is met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." Just a few suggestions on my part. Mkdw ^talk 16:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • So:

The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Commitee for pages related to Some Bullshit™, including this page. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to Some Bullshit™, including this page. Provided the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

Criteria is the plural form, and there are multiple, so I'm sticking with "are met" and not "is met", Mkdw. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 04:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for including some of my suggestions. Yes, you're right. I'm used to the colloquial form but I might have to wait another 20 years before it's accepted as written formal. One thing I noticed that wasn't transferred over above is a preposition between " may be used" and "editors who repeatedly or seriously fail". Previously versions had "against". It's debatable whether "any" needs to be repeated since, as you pointed out, criteria is plural, but it doesn't really affect the meaning of the sentence one way or another. Mkdw ^talk 17:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 fixed ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 18:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Mkdw, Dennis Brown, Salvidrim!, L235, Callanecc, NewsAndEventsGuy, Shrike, and Sandstein: is the latest version suitable now so that we can make the change? At the moment, if you need to add 2 separate DS notices they look identical, which is clearly a bad thing. I realise that a couple of you don't like these but as it stands they are required. Doug Weller talk 10:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I like plain Texas talk when it comes to templates. Something that says "Editors who edit disruptively in any way or violate the restrictions are likely to be prohibited from editing in this topic area or blocked from editing altogether." The last paragraph ("Provided....") is so watered down as to be vague to a newer editor. My sentence grabs their attention, tells them we are serious, and is in fact, more fair to them since it spells out exactly what will happen. They need to be cautious. I think we are trying to be too politically correct / nice / political or something. They need plain spoken facts that any 12 year old can understand. I don't think the awareness part is needed anyway, that is an issue for enforcement only. We don't need to tell them that this only applies if we tell them. They are already reading it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown has a point with regard to simplicity. However, we do occasionally see people at AE who request sanctions even when it is far from clear that the editors at issue were made properly aware of possible sanctions. Including the awareness requirement in the template helps prevent pointless enforcement requests. I agree with the most recent drafts above.  Sandstein  12:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with proposal, but I'll toss out another to compare. This version is a little wordier, but explicitly sets DS in context of our overall Blocking policy, and it tries to put the right "spin" on the topic (prevention to enhance smooth editing). I don't know template formatting so I'll just italicize it

'Editors at this page may be subject to Discretionary sanctions

Everywhere in Wikipedia, editors are expected to follow our policies and guidelines and those who don’t may be blocked from editing. Because some topics have proven especially contentious, the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (a faster enforcement process) to help keep things running smoothly in those areas. Before requesting or imposing such sanctions on another editor, please verify that the mandatory awareness criteria have been met.

It's wordier, but in my view, the only people likely to actually read the template are those who don't already know about DS and therefore extra words help make it more clear. But like I said, I'm also fine with the Doug's latest proposal. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the latest proposal, and with NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestion. My preference is slightly towards the one Doug points to above. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with NewsAndEventsGuy. Worse, we were promised another comprehensive review of DS over two years ago (the last one we had was four or five years ago, in Roger Davies's tenure), and it never happened. While DS may possibly be useful in some perennial-dispute content areas, they've been a problematic "solution" in internal ones (e.g. WP:ARBATC), and this template system has been an unmitigated disaster.

  First, the requirement to deliver templates, which expire after a while, permits any bad-actor to WP:GAME the system with ease; they simply disrupt to their heart's content in one area, finally get a notice after people try to do something about it and realize that their hands are tied to these stupid template requirements, then the disruptor simply goes and disrupts a different area they haven't received a notice about, or abandon their SPA and create another one. This "maybe they're unaware of the sanctions" thing is a harmful, community-self-delusional fantasy. They damned well know exactly what they're doing, and the presence of DS banners on the relevant talk pages makes everyone aware as soon as they start participating in the topic area.

  Second, the wording and appearance of these templates is so menacing, they are universally interpreted as hostile threats, never as neutral notices. I've even twice had people try to ANI me for "harassment" because I left them notices that ArbCom requires.
  (One of the main things I'd hoped to accomplish in 2018, as an ArbCom candidate, was DS reform. It's irksome that I missed election by less than 3% and actually received more support votes that 50% of the candidates who passed. The voting system we have for this is broken.)

  All that said, the proposals above are a tiny improvement and I support them, and without a desire to nit-pick over exact wording. But it's like putting a Band-aid on a shotgun wound.

  At bare minimum, a bot should deliver templates to anyone who edits a page (or talkpage thereof) subject to DS. Better yet, delete the userspace templates and assume, rationally, that "ignorance of the law is no exception" and that people who edit repeatedly in DS-covered topics are aware of the DS. Or just get rid of DS, which is the proximal and sole cause of "adminship is not/shouldn't be a big deal" no longer being true.
   —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  • As I said on SMcCandlish's talk page, I'd agree with using bots to deliver the alerts rather than editors. That would allow us to alert editors more comprehensively and thus solve the problem of editors not being alerted before a sanction, may reduce the threat factor of an alert if it's issued by a machine and remove any concern about alerts being issued selectively/with ulterior motives. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 11:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The problem with bots is that they cannot distinguish easily between content editors, who need to be made aware, and copy editors/error fixers who do not. Those who do the latter sort of work would end up with awareness notices for potentially every area of conflict on the encyclopaedia, clogging up their talk page and potentially discouraging newer editors with a big scary message that's not relevant to what they are doing. As an example, I recently went through fixing all the non-breaking space errors I could find. One of them was on an article in the India-Pakistan topic area, others the same day were to articles potentially within scope of the Eastern Europe, Arab-Israel and Pseudoscience areas. I'm not engaging with the topic when making these sorts of edits, indeed I don't even need to know what the topic of the article is in many cases. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

      So rule out minor edits. Or only deliver a notice after x number of edits to the page that are larger than y bytes. Or better yet, get rid of this stupid template and "awareness" system, as I suggested above in more detail.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

      • It's not just minor edits though, [15] is arguably minor, arguably not (in such situations I always default to not minor) but my subsequent edit to the page [16] added over 4K to the article and certainly isn't what I'd describe as minor. There could also easily have been a third edit to the page if one or more of the archives needed tweaking. Pretty much every algorithm I've seen proposed would flag this series of edits as indicating an editor involved in the subject and would send me an alert (if the University of Florida is within the scope of any active DS). Looking at my surrounding article edits - a French footballer, extradjudicial killing, a Spanish/Mexican pop group, and a Telgu film might work, but it might not as another editor may work through lists of articles that have patterns. However a human can see at a glance whether an editor needs to be alterted or not.
        While the idea of removing the notifications system is superficially attractive, it is not fair to sanction people for breaching rules they don't know exist and so there would need to be some other way of determining who does know about them and who does not. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
        • I am sure a bot can treat two edits separately (ignore the first and alert for the second). Otherwise, two other ways of doing this would be to create an opt-out list for the bot (with the understanding that opted out editors are considered to be aware of DS in any case) or to make the alert notice less scary sounding. Or we just accept the "editors notified about a minor edit" problem if we think that the benefits outweigh the problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
          • The point is that I don't think the benefits of bot delivery do outweigh the problems (indeed I think precisely the opposite). For copyeditors, typo fixers, etc, working on many topics notifications by bot would just be spam and, certainly after the first couple ignored as such. If then that editor did start editing content in a DS topic area the would formally be aware but not practically as they wouldn't have paid any attention to the alert. I think what should happen is that a human gives an alert (carefully worded and formatted to be strictly informative and non-scary) to every editor who makes a content edit in the topic area for the first time. A bot could, say once a day, generate a list of editors who've made edits to tagged articles but who have not been alerted in the past 12 months with the edits linked. A human could review those edits and easily see whether an alert is needed. This would work fine for quiet DS areas like the Shakespeare Authorship Question, but whether it would scale to something like Israel-Palestine you would need to ask someone who works in that topic area. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

    In the end, I cannot care about this "minor edits problem" because it is not actually a problem. ArbCom and AE have maintained, since day one and no matter what, that these template do nothing but make someone aware of something, and mean and imply nothing else. Ergo, precisely zero harm of any kind can come from ultimately being aware of every DS-covered topic on the system. Indeed, it's help one cover one's own ass I mean avoid unfortunate conflict and undeserved sanctions. Both AE and ArbCom even took this position when the early draft of this templates directly and wrongfully made allegations of prior wrongdoing ("If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic" and admins described them as warnings not awareness notices ("This warning is made as a result of ...") [17].

    See also Opabinia regalis's recent comments at [ the related ARCA discussion: "I actually think that's a feature, not a bug :) When the existing alerts come from specific other editors, people tend to react to them as if they're aggressive acts or personal affronts. If everybody and their mother gets one, and they come from DSBot, they're less personal. (I assume the bot could deliver just one notice per topic.)"

    The entire premise here is that people are overreacting to these notices as dire threats when they are nothing by pointers to an administrative fact about a topic area; the typical "Fuck off!" reaction people get when leaving one makes people largely unwilling to leave them, which means DS is not applicable to most of the people it should be. It's completely counter-productive to continue to try to treat them as not just neutral notices of a fact, to keep trying to give them gravitas by carving out exceptions for who should receive them. I kind of went along with this idea briefly, but I do not. If you edit the page, you get the notice.
     —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• @ SMCCandlish: you've missed the points that these will be confusing (and potentially off-putting) for new gnomes, and that the gnomes will not actually be aware in practical terms, because they will just treat the notices as spam and ignore them - meaning they will also potentially miss important notices that happen to look similar or any messages left with or at a similar time to the alert (regardless of subject or importance). For example, I edited articles in about 15 different topic areas yesterday, if I got an alert to say that I had 4 talk page messages and was used to getting these alerts I'd just assume that the messages were four more and wouldn't have looked at the message from Redrose64, or I might have scrolled passed it in the middle of the alerts. I certainly wouldn't note which topic areas they related to, or what specifics are in place in any of them. If in 6 months time I then made some content edits in a conflict area I would be formally aware that is under DS but in practice I would be clueless. I don't oppose bot-delivery, but the selection of who to deliver them to needs to remain done by humans otherwise we'll just end up with a new set of problems - including defeating a key purpose of the system. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  Seems like you want a throttle on DS notices if they are automated (i.e no more than N alerts for N topic areas in X time). Complicated to code but would solve that issue. Besides, the alerts being delivered by humans is a problem given the points I mentioned, not a neutral fact. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  No I don't think a throttle will solve most of the problems I identified. I'm not doubting that human delivery has problems, but indiscriminate bot-delivery will not necessarily solve all of them and will definitely lead to other problems. This is why I'm suggesting humans tell bots who to deliver alerts to. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  they will just treat the notices as spam and ignore them - meaning they will also potentially miss important notices that happen to look similar or any messages left with or at a similar time to the alert (regardless of subject or importance) seems rather dubious to me - we have plenty of bots (and humans) which do alerting for other issues and I am not aware of any such thing happening (and is certainly not ameliorated by human delivery, either). There is little merit to have humans telling bots to deliver notices to specific editors over the humans doing it themselves. As for the minor edit issue, throttling does reduce the spam issue and besides even minor edits can cause contention. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  Absolutely minor edits can cause contention, and major edits can be completely unquestionable and irrelevant to the topic area. This is why an algorithm can't determine who needs an alert and who doesn't. In my experience other bot-driven delivered notices are either things you've subscribed to (e.g. newsletters, RfC invitations) and are thus relevant to the recipient or are directly related to edits the gonme has made and relevant to their work (e.g. the you linked to a disambiguation page notices). These are not spam and so not treated as such. 1 notice per day (or pretty much any other throttle) still doesn't solve the issue of a pile of notices that are not being read and remembered down the line, and would prevent the recepit of notices when gnomish edits in one topic precede content edits in another. Also, you don't need to repeatedly try and convince me that the current system has problems when I agree it does. My argument is simply that your proposed solution will create different problems that are at least as bad as the ones you are trying to solve. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  Well, I was more contesting the claim that these problems would be as bad as the current ones. Then again, I think we need more opinions. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)