---

(Nutshell)

Original section

• The 'come one... come all' Wikipedia you thought existed is really a thriving bureaucracy, and they've all got in first, so don't bother offering an opinion, and be careful with your edits. AnonNep ( talk) 21:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Having wasted hundreds of hours dealing with POV pushing meat puppets who get away with slandering BLPs and harassing editors who try to make the encyclopedia NPOV, with many visits to noticeboards only occasionally resulting in any effective action against the most aggressive ones, I'd like to see some butt kicking myself. Assuming the same types don't take over the arbitration committee or administrative enforcement (as happens from time to time, though I've seen several such types removed, though after much hassle). User:Carolmooredc 03:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• I feel that the definition should be first and more clear. Change to read, "Discretionary sanctions is a fast-track method for dealing with contentious or disruptive conduct within specified areas of conflict. It is a procedure authorised by the Arbitration Committee on a case by case basis and usually involves imposing temporary, special rules to resolve disruption and promote civil participation." Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitions

Original section

• "editors and administrators" is redundant and repetitive, as the former is a superset of the latter. Should read

• The community at large consists of editors who are not involved with either the area of conflict or the editor facing or under sanction. NE Ent 12:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That one should have come out altogether I@ll do so now) as the expression "community at large" is no longer used in the text below.   Roger Davies ^talk 16:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• A comment on wording choices. I reviewed the draft definitions, had a question, followed the link to the discussion (here), where I saw a Link to "Original Section". I wanted to see how the definitions looked before the draft, and inferred that "original Section" was a link to the older version of the section. It appears I was wrong. I'm puzzled by wording usage, but I'll get over it. However, I do not know where to go to see the version being updated. Is it Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions? Am I correct in noting that the definitions section is wholly new, as opposed to modified?

And, at long last, why the phrase "access to administrative tools is at all material times enabled"? Sounds like there is a point, but it is escaping me.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• We intend this draft to eventually replace the contents of the grey box at WP:AC/DS. As you will see at that page, the existing discretionary sanctions system is rather different from the one proposed by this draft, so not all sections will have existing companion sections. AGK [•] 20:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• @ Sphilbrick: That sentence is designed to solve a question that comes around every so often; do people who have lost their admin flag that could get it back merely through request at BN, count as admins? Courcelles 16:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Awkward, but I guess necessary.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• The status of being uninvolved is important. However, I submit that the current set of definitions is muddled, in that the term "administrator" includes the status of "uninvolved " in its definition, yet the term "uninvolved administrator" is used, which technically, but confusingly is redundant, while sometimes "administrator" without the qualifier is used. I think this can be resolved; one approach, not ideal, is to state that the unqualified term "administrator" is used herein only to mean administrators who are uninvolved. The better solution is to add the qualifier in all cases where the qualifier is needed. The current wording uses it sometimes, but not in other cases.

• "Discretionary Sanctions" should be a defined term, and should be consistently capitalized (right now it is not). Also, are there non-discretionary sanctions? Sorry that I don't know. But if there are not, then why not just use the term "Sanctions"? How are these different from "individual sanctions" described in the "Role of administrators" section? Jytdog ( talk) 16:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that for clarity and immediacy uninvolved needs to precede administrator in all relevant places.   Roger Davies ^talk 04:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Then put UNINVOLVED ADMINISTRATOR in the definitions list. Dovid ( talk) 05:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Committee is defined. Therefore, in the body, you shouldn't say "Arbitration Committee". Apparently, you are using British English. Therefore, I assume Committee would take a plural verb. In one instance, you have "Committee consider" and in another "Comnmittee considers"; if I'm right (I'm American), it should be "consider". Regardless, it should be consistent.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Authorisation

Original section

• "full force" -> "force." (Unless ya'll want to explain the difference between the two.) NE Ent 12:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• In this context, not reduced in force by the passage of time.   Roger Davies ^talk 16:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands#Discretionary sanctions for naming of disputed islands in East Asia was brought up late in the discussion. What do people think the best strategy for dealing with this is, as the remedy is in conflict with the new wording of discretionary sanctions. Should we just extend discretionary sanctions to that entire topic area by motion to eliminate any possible conflict and then hope no future Committee issues a similar motion? Or do people have other possible wordings in mind for this section? NW ( Talk) 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• NW, if it is believed that a motion is needed, then extending discretionary sanctions to 'naming of disputed islands in East Asia' sounds good. And remove the section called Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands#Discretionary sanctions for naming of disputed islands in East Asia. This would take away the admin discretion for adding disputed areas and remove the apparent conflict with the new DS text which says "Once authorised, they may only be modified by the Committee". EdJohnston ( talk) 15:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• I forget who first raised this now but we probably need to get a motion underway at some point,   Roger Davies ^talk 04:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Recommended change: Sanctions will be reviewed annually.

In most cases, this will be a formality, but it is an important formality to make sure years-old cases are reviewed by each newly-elected Committee and that newly-elected Committee members are up-to-date on the sanctions that are still in force. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 03:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree. It is the obvious duty of all ArbCom members to familiarize themselves with ArbCom history. I see no use in annual reviews. If any specific ArbCom ruling is outdated, somebody will sooner or later raise the issue and ArbCom will likely be flexible enough to revise such outdated decisions as the need arises. Debresser ( talk) 01:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Behavioural expectations

Original section

• In my own topic ban [1], because I was under DS I did my utmost to follow "Behavioural expectations". Instead of editing the article, (a) I discussed my proposed change (I did not edit the article following my DS), (b) I provided additional WP:RS to support my proposal, and when there was disagreement, (c) I went to WP:IRS for further input. But I was accused of Wikilawering, criticised for using WP:IRS, accused of civil pushing, and taken to arbitration. As user My76Strat stated in my case, "Discussion is the means for collaborative editing" [2]. I agree. Perhaps "Behavioural expectations" needs tweaking, as it seems to have worked against me. -- Iantresman ( talk) 00:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd suggest a very minor change of wording: from "comply with any applicable policy and guideline" to "comply with all applicable policies and guidelines" hgilbert ( talk) 18:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• WP:CIVIL should apply to all editors, all the time. It doesn't. In the article I am currently discussing, myself and other editors have been accused of being incompetent, accused of WP:TE (when I haven't even edited the article), some from an editor with several WP:CIVIL warnings on their talk page. Incivility is not cool, created an unhealthy editing environment, and is not constructive. Editors should not have to put up with this kind of environment. -- Iantresman ( talk) 23:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As obvious as this is, I still feel the need to express my agreement. Sometimes, too much stress is put on formal procedures, while editors are outright insulting or at best being highhanded asses all around. Debresser ( talk) 01:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have found that even if you bring solid diffs to WP:ANI of bad behavior, and a number of people agree it's bad behavior, the offending editor can make a lot of false or exaggerated claims (using maybe 1 diff), bring a bunch of their outraged friends over to back up the claims (using no diffs) and thus Blah-Blah-Blah their way out of any effective criticism or sanction of their bad behavior. In Arbitrations ( WP:ARBPIA being the one I'm most familiar with), this often leads to both parties being sanctioned, even though one may merely have lost their temper responding to repeated absurd policy violations. So if admins are just going to take the easy way out and sanction both, it's not going to be very effective because the aggrieved party will be reluctant to complain. Seen it a number of times. User:Carolmooredc 03:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been banned from entire spectrum of Gujarat and politics related article because of edits on talk page of only one article. Not only that, I have been banned on the basis of so-called warning given by involved admin. Also no enforcing admin explained what was my WP:Tendentious behaviour was. This whole sanction was imposed on me only because 2 admins and 3 users were against me. It is impossible to ban 5 users, especially an admin. So easy way out was to ban only one user i.e me.

When the ban expires, this same group will again find some ridiculous reason to ban me. Such groups push POV in articles, succeed in blocking or banning users. Such things are destroying project. [3] [4] Abhi ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Alerts and edit notices

Original section

• What do people prefer as a name for the no-fault notifications? Obviously, notification itself is already being used. That leaves notice, which is a bit legalistic, or alert, which is probably the most neutral, implying as it does that the editor was previously unaware of the existence of DS for the page. Or does anyone else have any bright ideas?   Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Alert. NE Ent 12:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Alert. Andreas JN 466 21:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Alert" is fine by me. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder whether anyone should be sanctioned on the basis of an edit notice alone. Edit notices are easily ignored. It seems to me that edit notices should act as reminders that a page is under restriction but that individual editors would require seerate alerts/notices before action is taken.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Concur. banners are invisible. NE Ent 12:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• This conversation feels oddly familiar. I can't see anything on the ArbWiki, but I feel like we had it already... Anyway, my view remains that if people are edit warring in an area they must know to be controversial, I have no sympathy for them if they didn't read the banner and got hit by a <1 day block. NW ( Talk) 16:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I share the concern expressed by Roger Davies and NE Ent. Most editors don't read the edit notices. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I also feel edit notices oughtn't be considered full alerts. I'm a conscientious editor (I hope!), and even I breeze through those sometimes. And I just don't think it's a big enough loss to say "you need to leave a note on this editor's talk page once before you apply the hammer".
• Side note: What's the latest with Visual Editor? Is that still happening? And if so, is it going to affect edit notices? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• @ Heimstern: VisualEditor is still happening, and edit notices that use the edit notice system (mostly) work fine (from memory the only two outstanding issues are that long notices don't scroll, and that the lack of an explicit close button confuses some users), load The Faraway Tree in VisualEditor for example. HTML comments are presently invisible to VE users, see T51603. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with NW.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure #4 is a good idea, at least not with the current wording. Under the current wording, any uninvolved editor who comments on an AE request is automatically at risk of being sanctioned for the simple act of providing an uninvolved opinion. This would discourage uninvolved editors from commenting on AE request as it potentially subjects them to immediate sanctions should they make a mistake. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That’s not how I read it: the same objection ought to apply equally to all the points in the section, but the ‘not unless’ introduction implies an actual transgression of the restrictions elsewhere as a precondition. This is about notification, not vulnerability, so to speak, and someone who has participated in a relevant AE discussion can scarcely claim ignorance of the subject (per NW & NE in the example concerning #3 below).— Odysseus 147 9 06:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was that previously, the warning/notification was a heads up that somebody is concerned with your editing. Now, there is no advance warning that there might be a problem. That's what I meant. And yes, I think someone can reasonably say they were unaware of the sanctions even if they participated in an AE discussion. I frequently (well, not too much anymore) post uninvolved comments at AE. If I posted an uninvolved comment to some thread 3 years ago (for example), there's a good chance I won't even remember it. In fact, there's a post I made in a current active AE thread which I guarantee, I don't even remember the topic-space is. It's the one about the appeal from SonOfSonata(sp?). I made a short comment about WP:V. I'd have to look it up to see what topic-space is it. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's true that this draft proposes scrapping the current system of warning for specific edits/misconduct. Instead, editors are alerted that they need to step very lightly within the topic. All in all, an alert is less drama-inducing than a warning, which is good, and it is also what the vast majority of people commenting here, and at various AE and ArbCom pages, prefer. Simply put, it gets rid of the perceived opprobrium attaching to warnings. However, it does reduce the bar for sanctions from two strikes (ie from 'warning about specific misconduct, then sanction' to 'general alert without necessarily any misconduct, then sanction'). I expect enforcing admins to take the lowered bar into account when imposing sanctions and, instead of say imposing topic bans for a first offence, simply reminding, or admonishing, or warning. If there's sufficient enthusiasm for it, I might draft a sentence to this effect for possible inclusion. Such a sentence, though, will need to be explicitly advisory to avoid it triggering appeals. At the end of the day, AE is about administrators exercising judgment rather than applying set tariffs specified by ArbCom.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Editors subject to DS are identified in one of 4 ways. The third of which is

has been mentioned by name in the Final Decision of the case in which the applicable discretionary sanctions were authorised; or

In the recent Tea Party Case Final decision, the name "KillerChihuahua" appears. Does this mean she is subject to DS? I think the answer is no, which might suggest a modification, to "specifically named in a heading" or some such language.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, KC may be sanctioned via discretionary sanctions. Parties to a case where a discretionary sanctions measure was passed may reasonable be said to be aware of discretionary sanctions already; hence, there is no need to alert them to it. NW ( Talk) 00:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it means pages related to the tea party movement are under discretionary sanctions and the puppy should be aware of that fact without someone having to point it out to her explicitly. (And presumably I'm now under the halo of "alerted editors" ...) NE Ent 02:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. (This is a reply to many above points, but mainly AQfK) The whole point of the lesser alert idea is that an edit notice or participating in AE is enough because the Alert system is not (and never were supposed to be) a kind of yellow card, it always was supposed to be a notification. In fact this brings Template:Uw-sanctions in line with Template:Uw-probation - which is NOT a warning.

If a sysop can see that someone knows an area is under probation/DS it is a counter-productive and pointlessly litigious process by which they NEED to be issued with a warning before being sanctioned regardless of the level of disruption. It was long the practice at AE (before 2012) that working on pages with a talk page banner or at AE discussions about sanctioning others that this was de facto considered to be a constructive warning: i.e the user was not unaware of AC/DS. Many Rulings also warn (i,e the 1RR under WP:TROUBLES) that no warning is necessary. The whole point of this review is to reduce the litigious behaviour by some users. If a user is new to a topic and is unaware of AC/DS that should be taken into account - equally if they've been around for a while, and/or participated in multiple threads (often lobbying for sanctioning others) relating to AC/DS in that area then that too should be taken into account.

AQfK, you're essentially making the argument above re: participating at AE that "I didn't bother to actually read the detail". Then don't chime in until you've read the details. Equally if some one is NOT reading a talk page fully perhaps that is part of their problem in the topic area-- Cailil ^talk 11:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Cailil:I apologize if I wasn't clear. I'm not referring to editors who are involved in a dispute. It seems only common sense that if an editor participated in an AE discussion in a topic space they're involved in that they are obviously aware of the sanctions. I believe that's how AE already operates (so no change is required).

What I am referring to is editors who are uninvolved in a dispute and are simply providing uninvolved comments. Wikipedia values the contributions of uninvolved editors, but if this change goes through, it means that any uninvolved editor by the mere fact of providing uninvolved opinion automatically subjects them to the possibility of sanctions without warning. That's the part that I'm concerned with.

A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge: Well I think my comment from a few days ago actually addresses this. If other editors want to take part they need to be accountable for their input just like sysops are. AE is not DRN or ANi, it's not just another board. If by taking part in a discussion an editor is (formally) considered aware of an RFAR ruling that's a tiny (and logical) level of accountability.

The corollary however is thoroughly illogical. If we are to regard editors who take part in AE as knowing nothing about the RFAR (the whole purpose of the issue being at AE in the first place) the question is: "why are they commenting?". Also with the move to 'alert' rather than 'warning' the whole idea of someone being aware of an RFAR is not a perceived stigma. It's just a fact. Like someone driving who sees a speed limit sign. They can't then claim "I didn't know".

Also given that this is about "discretionary" sanctions I would suggest someone who makes 1 comment in 1 AE thread about an issue and makes a mistake then that would be taken into account (and if it wasn't it'd likely be quickly overturned at appeal). I also think there is a huge difference between some editors who consistently comment on particular issues without editing in them per se. These editors know what they're talking about and cannot claim a chance mistake-- Cailil ^talk 15:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Cailil: Those are fair points, but it seems to me that these changes are simply replacing one set of problems with another set. Who's to say which set of problems is worse than the other? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• As I am currently topic banned as the result of DS, I offer the following in an attempt to improve due process:

• It is not clear what is meant by "notified, in the prescribed manner". There seems to be two things here (1) notification that an article is under DS (2) An admin warning an editor. WP:ARBPS #13/#14 "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning". The latter is ambiguous. Does the "initial warning" refer to the DS article notification? I think not, the uninvolved admin has to give the user an initial warning. If it meant the DS, it would have said so, or worded it differently. In my own DS topic ban [5] I received no warning from the uninvolved admin.

• It is not clear whether "edited a restricted page" refers to editing an article, or editing the talk page, or both. WP:ARBPS #13 referes to "articles" which would not imply their talk pages? In my own DS topic ban [6] I did not edit the article following the DS.

• "displaying an edit notice" may be a problem as you can't always identify the article concerned. For example, WP:ARBPS #13/#14 refers to categories of pages. My DS WP:ARBPS #13 refers to "Articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted". In my own DS topic ban [7], the article I discussed was mainstream. But "broadly interpreted" meant (a) an academic textbook used as the citation under discussion, could be considered by some editors to mention a fringe subject (b) that the fringe subject was synonymous with another fringe subject (c) that the second fringe subject once had a fringe-related category added (d) that the fringe-related category, although it was removed from Wikipedia 5 years ago, was a subcategory of "pseudoscience". Hardly intuitive, -- Iantresman ( talk) 00:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• (this is partly in response to Gatoclass' comment in the #Logging section). I think it would be useful to have two levels of alerts. The first level as discussed above would be a message saying basically "Be aware that discretionary sanctions exist and that they apply to <article or topic>". The second level would be an advisory, issuable only by an uninvolved editor (administrator?), to the effect of "Be aware that your recent editing at <article or topic> has given one or more editors cause for concern, specifically <details of cause for concern>. You are reminded that discretionary sanctions apply to <article or topic>. This is not a sanction, but you are advised that you may be sanctioned at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator if you continue to edit in this manner. You are encouraged to civilly discuss any aspect of this that is unclear". The idea is that the second level would be given in lieu of sanctions where behaviour was borderline unacceptable or otherwise concerning. If the same behaviour continued after the advisory then the sanctions would be appropriate, even if the behaviour was no worse, as it is then clearly deliberate. Just like the first level alert, a second level advisory is not appealable as you cannot be made unaware that someone has concerns. The second level would not be required under any circumstances, but would require a person to have previously received a L1 alert or otherwise be formally aware of the existence of DS for where they were editing. I know I use terminology inconsistently here, so to clarify I am suggesting either "Level 1 alert" and "level 2 alert" or "alert" and "advisory". Thryduulf ( talk) 00:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, it might be helpful to have a standardised Level 2 template though it's probably best is to give the new procedures time to bed in first.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
    • This proposal doesn't appear to say that {{ uw-sanctions}} is going away. Which implies that some kind of 'level 2' will be available to admins. I'd be against any expectation that level 2 is required, because that would introduce the problems we had before. People would be offended at receiving the warning and want to appeal it. If there is any temptation to change this proposal to mention the uw-sanctions warning I'd favor making the issuance of that warning be unappealable. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
      • If administrators were to start issuing two alerts prior to sanctioning an editor, two alerts might become the norm, despite that the official remedy we're drafting now requires only the issuing of a single alert. This would create a disparity between the actual policy and community norms. I think we should actively prevent such disparity creeping into the system. However, at the moment, we do have courtesy edit notices and talk page notices (like {{ Discretionary sanctions}}) that serve as a sort of preliminary, "Level 0.5" warning to editors – with {{ uw-sanctions}} (and in the future {{ arbcom-alert}}) serving as the "Level 1" warning. I consider that set of warnings adequate, because editors who miss the courtesy warnings will still be alerted to discretionary sanctions before becoming eligible for sanctions, and editors who misbehave after the formal alert clearly should not require a second or third alert before they could be sanctioned. If they did require a second or third alert, I think we would have come dangerously close to eroding the purpose of discretionary sanctions (to be a " fast-track procedure" for tackling misconduct). AGK [•] 07:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
      • However, I have just built a little more flexibility into {{ alert}}: by declaring |warn=yes, the template now returns stronger wording that can be reviewed here (it's the alert with the orange icon). Having said this, I'm not sure whether this change should stay: doesn't it undermine the notion that alerts are supposed to be neutral? AGK [•] 07:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
        • It should not because it does. NE Ent 10:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with NE Ent. The current text at {{alert}} is in the Goldilocks zone of being unaccusatory but clear. Perhaps the notion of a "final warning" should be left as a type of sanction at the imposing sysop's discretion. Rather than as a level 2 it could be a separate option for lower level breaches of the probation-- Cailil ^talk 12:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, on reflection I think you guys are correct. I have reverted my change to the template. As I said earlier, I would prefer the correct order escalation to be neutral alert → sanctions, with edit notice and/or talk page header notice being offered beforehand as a courtesy but never being mandatory. AGK [•] 14:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I find his whole section to be problematic. The goal seems to be "you can get sanctions only if you new you were KNOWINGLY behaving in a way that invites sanction scrutiny," but then doesn't want to make it too easy to squirrel out of it with an "I didn't know sanctions scrutiny applied to the action that kicked off my sanctions." So, we find multiple ways that it can apply. Let's keep it simple, and make sure the user should have notice via a user talk notice, period. How much do we lose by not allowing sanctions because we think the user might have known, but we didn't inform said user? Dovid ( talk) 05:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I hope that none of my AWB edits could ever be regarded as contentious, but just in case, I'd like to point out that editors using AWB won't know that there is an edit notice. -- John of Reading ( talk) 14:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• As others, above, I disagree with the suggestion that someone not otherwise aware of the sanctions should be considered sufficiently warned and open to sanction because of an edit notice on an article (number 2 on the list). If they have never previously been involved with problematic edits in topics with discretionary sanctions, then I think as a matter of courtesy an editor should receive a message on their Talk page before any sanctions are applied. It's too easy to miss edit notices or not understand the seriousness of them; applying sanctions when all that may be necessary is a slap on the wrist (i.e. warning notice on their Talk page) seems over the top to me. -- Merlinme ( talk) 16:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that - it is easy to miss edit notices. Gatoclass ( talk) 17:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• The article edit page has to have a Arbitration notice. Notices on the top of the talk page are not enough. Far to easy to miss. In WP:ARBPIA there was one but I never could figure out how to get it to work and had to ask and admin to do it a couple times. Shouldn't be that hard. User:Carolmooredc 03:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Warnings, revisited

As I said earlier, I think a warning template, in addition to a mere "alert" template, is desirable. Warnings are a form of sanction between alerts and editing restrictions which make it clear that a user has misconducted themselves and that repeated misconduct is likely to result in editing restrictions. If we are going to end up with a lot of alerts, which seems likely given that they are being formally opened up to any user not just admins, I think it will be important to distinguish between innocuous alerts and instances where a user has been found to have engaged in misconduct, for future reference. Warnings of course should only be issuable by admins for obvious reasons, and like any other sanction they should be appealable at AE. Gatoclass ( talk) 17:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Gatoclass: Basically, you are asking for the "admonishment" result of an enforcement request to be standardised in a template. We will certainly be happy to write such a template, and I agree it is desirable to clearly differentiate it from the Alert template. However, just to be clear, would this template act like {{ AE sanction}} – used by administrators to communicate the result of enforcement requests – and not itself be a harsher form of the Alert? AGK [•] 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking me here exactly. My point is that I think the existing warning template, at least as it was, was useful, and that it or some version of it should be retained. Of course, admins have the power to impose discretionary sanctions independently of formal enforcement requests, so if you are suggesting templated warnings only be permitted as a result of such requests, I don't think I could support that. If however, you are only asking me whether I think a templated warning should be considered "a harsher form of Alert" or a type of sanction in and of itself, I would consider it a type of sanction (and therefore, incidentally, appealable). The problem we had with the previous warning template was not that there was something wrong with the template itself IMO, but the fact that we had no alternative template, so that users ended up being issued warnings when a neutral alert would have been more appropriate. What I don't want to see occur now is for us to err in the opposite direction, ie to have an alert template but no warning template. Both are needed for different circumstances IMO. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you may be asking me whether I think a templated warning should be useable as "a harsher form of alert" as you put it, or whether as a form of sanction such warnings should only be issuable after an alert has been issued. My first impulse would be to say that I think it could be issued "as a harsher form of alert" without the need for a prior alert. However, I suppose it could be considered unfair to issue such a warning if the warning pertains to something that is only an offence under discretionary sanctions but not an offence under standard guidelines - for example, breach of 1RR versus the standard breach of 3RR - because the whole point of alerts is that the user may not know special conditions pertain to a given topic area. So I would say, the warning can only be issued without a prior alert for offences that would normally be an offence under standard editing guidelines, like say breach of 3RR. The reason I am inclined to retain "a harsher form of alert" is that sometimes users are engaging in pretty egregious breaches right from the outset, and that a neutral alert would seem insufficient in such cases. Gatoclass ( talk) 12:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Clause 4

Clause 4 of the "Alerts and edit notices" section states that a user is subject to sanction if they have participated in a discretionary sanction discussion about the same area of conflict at the AE noticeboard. I think this is a little too narrow, because what we are looking for is simply clear evidence that a user is fully aware of existing discretionary sanctions. I would therefore suggestion a modification along the following lines:

• has a clearly demonstrated awareness of the existence of discretionary sanctions in the topic area in question, either by participation in a discussion about the same area of conflict at the AE noticeboard, or by comments made about the applicable discretionary sanctions anywhere else. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• A fair idea, but I think the criteria have deliberately been narrowly drawn because ascertaining "awareness" is quite difficult. However, we'll certainly consider if your proposed wording would work better. Thanks, AGK [•] 10:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Issuing alerts and placing edit notices

Original section

• This is now a no-fault neutral notification procedure.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's a very sensible approach that resolves many problems with the previous "warnings". Currently, the wording of {{ ArbCom-Alert}} reads "This notice is given to you by an uninvolved administrator", which is at odds with the rule's provision that any editor may issue alerts. I think the template message should be made yet more neutral in tone, e.g. by replacing "If you disruptively edit ..." with "If anybody disruptively edits ..." and so on.  Sandstein  08:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• AGK may have been working with the then-current but since-modified draft when he created that template. It has been edited to reflect the new changes. NW ( Talk) 16:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• "This notice is given to you by another editor" now appears superfluous. Or do many editors issue themselves templated notices?  Sandstein  16:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• While I remember, it might be a good idea to prohibit the same individual issuing an alert and a sanction.   Roger Davies ^talk 16:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• To what end? That is only an issue if an administrator issues an alert, and as the rules provide, "previous routine enforcement interactions and participation in enforcement discussions do not constitute involvement and are not usually grounds for recusal". Why should that not apply to alerts?  Sandstein  16:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Sandstein. NW ( Talk) 16:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• I entirely think having two separate admins issue the alert and the sanction is best practice, but I'd not go further than that and put it in policy. It's not consistent with any of the rest of our policies and really doesn't need to be policy, even though I think it's a good practice. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see any problem with the same admin issuing an alert and following it up with a sanction if the user ignores the alert, it's done all the time outside AE and there is no reason to impose additional restrictions on admins working within AE. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Where should the wording in {{ ArbCom-Alert}} be discussed? Given than one editor engaged in a case can warn an editor on the other side, the wording should be even more neutral. A quick suggestion is here. Johnuniq ( talk) 12:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Done: The above was resolved on my talk page. AGK [•] 07:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the second sentence modified to read, "advisory in nature, do not require prior questionable conduct or misconduct, and cannot be". — TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Seems a good suggestion,   Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• How about "... do not require or imply...", in order to indicate the sense as well as the procedure? ~ Ningauble ( talk) 13:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding "... and cannot be revoked or appealed":  This is perfectly correct, because advisement is not a reversible action, and is procedurally apropos, because editors have evidently sought to be "un-notified". I am sure that administrators understand the sense of this, but any editor may serve these notices and, to the uninitiated, this way of saying it may seem like one is irrevocably and irredeemably condemned.

  At the risk of undue verbosity, how about explaining the sense of this with something like "... as such, being made aware is not something that can be reversed or appealed."? ~ Ningauble ( talk) 13:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Logging

Original section

• I sometimes see admins forgetting to update the log after issuing a notification, warning, etc.. Can we add some verbiage here explaining that any editor can update the log? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I worry that this is extending too much into WP:CREEP. That is how it has worked in practice for years, and I am hesitating to add more verbiage to an already long page. NW ( Talk) 00:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Not necessary, I've made multiple edits to WP:Editing restrictions and no one's yelled at me (thus far). NE Ent 02:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• One concern I have is that some users may attempt to well poison by logging multiple alerts about their opponents in an attempt to make it appear that the latter are chronic offenders. We wouldn't want the log page to be overwhelmed by gratuitous alerts either, so this is an issue that might need to be addressed. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Gatoclass. Recent cases and appeals indicate that at least some users consider a logged warning to be a stain on their record, or something similar to an actual sanction. I think this is a mistaken impression, but it needs to be taken into account. I would maintain the principle of logging alerts (or whatever they're called), in order to allow administrators to determine if users were aware of DS. But I encourage the Committee to consider a form of logging that makes clear that an alert has no stigma attached. Perhaps a dedicated page or subpage should be set up for that purpose.  Sandstein  12:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, indeed, @ Gatoclass:. We may need to add a bit along the lines of "editors engaging in the excessive or pointy or disruptive issuing of alerts may be required to desist and/or may be sanctioned themselves" (input welcome on text). Again, though, it needs careful wording to avoid opening up a whole new area for wiki-lawyering and spurious AE requests.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sandstein's idea for a separate subpage or page for alerts makes pretty good sense, if we do that it probably won't matter if alerts are made a little too frequently, as long as a compact means of adding them is organized. If someone is abusing the privilege they can always be warned by an admin under the existing AE remedies. BTW, I am also inclined to the view that we should retain the existing warning template, for use by admins only, in cases where admins feel a warning rather than mere alert is justified. Gatoclass ( talk) 09:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have replied regarding the warning template in the #Alerts and edit notices section. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• A few thoughts, based on the (IMO successful) community sanctions process with respect to the Barack Obama articles around 2009-2010. Regular editors who were minding the articles routinely placed a community sanctions notice on the page of any editor who arrived and seemed to take an interest in the topic, not just editors they disagreed with or who were being difficult. It was a no-fault template, and some made a point of pride of notifying each other or themselves, just so everybody had notice. Each editor gets one alert, if they've already received it there's no need for a second. If you draft the alert in a helpful friendly way, and make sure people don't use it selectively or abusively, placing repeat notices and logging them is not itself tendentious, quite the opposite. Logging, incidentally, should be a requirement but a person once sanctioned should not be let off merely for lack of sanctions. Perhaps more importantly, editors under sanctions for violating discretionary sanctions should not have their sanctions removed for lack of notice if there was adequate grounds for a remedy even without discretionary sanctions (as there usually is), under WP:INVOLVED if an uninvolved administrator might reasonably have imposed the sanctions (one can reign in abusive admins by dealing with them directly, not by unleashing a tendentious editor back on the community), for lack of logging (that's a technical mistake), and except in extreme cases not by unilateral action of a reviewing admin without a thorough discussion. There's already a far too permissive environment for admins to undo each other's actions. If an editor violates discretionary sanctions but the outcome was unnecessary, stale, punitive, etc., they can always make nice and promise not to do it again, and their sanction will likely be lifted. If a difficult editor's sanction is lifted because they dug in their heels, leveled accusations against other editors, gathered allies, played process games, etc., then that only tends to embolden them. - Wikidemon ( talk) 06:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Role of administrators

Original section

• I don't think there's anything new or controversial here,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• "warning" is an undefined term here -- is it the same as an "alert," or something different? NE Ent 12:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Here it's being used in its common or garden sense ("Do that again and I'll sanction you") which like admonitions, advice, etc is a valid remedy/sanction. Perhaps some other examples would help clarify that.   Roger Davies ^talk 16:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• ( edit conflict) It's different, like how a police officer may choose to let someone a speeding driver go after having a brief conversation with them, even though that driver broke the law. NW ( Talk) 16:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Two comments/queries: One, y'all might want to add "reminder" as an option before warnings and admonishments, since a significant number of current AE requests result in "so-and-so is reminded to adhere to the such-and-such policy." Two, this section gives admins the power to unilaterally site-ban editors (for up to a year); previously, they could only block them. Not saying I do or don't object to such a change, but, seeing Roger's initial comment above, thought I'd make sure this difference is intentional. Assuming it is intentional, I think it could use some clarification—what differences would switching from blocks to bans entail? would this change the appeal process? how, if at all, would these site bans differ from site bans issued by other entities? —  PinkAmpers & ^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• @ PinkAmpersand: It's probably best if it talks about blocks, it was indeed a drafting slip.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good point about the site ban. Sanctions should be limited to the area under discretionary sanctions, not all of Wikipedia. NE Ent 11:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• @ NE Ent: There are many occasions when a sanction cannot be sensibly restricted just to the topic. If, for instance, the misconduct is serially repeated, despite a topic ban ...   Roger Davies ^talk 05:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We have existing, wiki-wide mechanisms for serial misconduct -- as I understand it, the justification for ACDS is that there are limited areas that are so contentious that "fast-track" dispute resolution is in the best interests of Wikipedia. I'm not following the committee's thinking that an editor who is disruptive in both DS and plain vanilla areas must be dealt with using the DS mechanism. NE Ent 10:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@ NE Ent: I didn't make myself sufficiently clear. Example: SPA misbehaves in Toxic Topic, alerted; SPA further misbehaves in Toxic Topic, topic banned; SPA ignores topic-ban and continues to misbehave in Toxic Topic, warning of site ban; SPA ignores warning and continues to edit despite topic ban; site banned.

Also, where did I say that editors engaging in misconduct in plain vanilla areas should be dealt with under DS?   Roger Davies ^talk 07:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If the SPA ignores topic ban, I'd expect a series of escalating blocks. There are sanctions (the topic ban) and enforcement actions (blocks). I think the draft is saying site ban where block would convey the intent / scope better. Obviously an WP:AEBLOCK and a site ban are close to functionality equivalent. NE Ent 09:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• The link to "behavioural expectations" seems to be broken. Lou Sander ( talk) 13:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Questionable sanctions: Yes. Just don't be afraid to make it stick. User:Carolmooredc 03:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Here's alternate, clearer, more consistent wording (taking no side on the ban/block question):

Role of administrators

Any uninvolved administrator may impose discretionary sanctions or page restrictions for repeated or serious failure to meet Wikipedia's behavioural expectations.

Individual sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions of up to one year in duration on any duly-notified editor. Sanctions include warnings, admonishments, editing restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, site bans and/or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to restore standard editing protocols for the area of conflict. Sanctions must be logged.

Page restrictions

Any uninvolved administrator may impose editing restrictions on any page relating to the area of conflict. Restrictions include semi-protection, protection, move protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of specific content (in the absence of a firm consensus) and/or any other measures that the imposing administrator finds necessary to restore standard editing protocols for the area of conflict. Page restrictions must be logged.

Questionable sanctions

The Arbitration Committee can impose appropriate remedies, including prohibiting further actions, on any administrator who it finds taking questionable actions, or whose actions it regularly overturns on appeal.

Lfstevens ( talk) 17:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Modifying or overturning discretionary sanctions

Original section

• The phrasing says " participating administrators" -- yet Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions describes these places as "community noticeboard" and the definition of community is "editors" not "administrators." Are non-admin editors to be forbidden from particpating in AE and AN discussions, or is a closing admin to ignore those contributions? NE Ent 12:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• According to this proposal, non-admins would be allowed to take part in AN discussions, but their opinion would not count as far as the determination of consensus is concerned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Does "AN" include subpages (specifically AN/I)? NE Ent 12:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• It does not. NW ( Talk) 16:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's probably worth mentioning. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think it would be worth adding here that sanctions may be modified with explicit permission from the Committee. For example if a motion is passed that allows, but does not require, the modification of DS in a topic area/for an individual it reads that permission from the imposing admin and/or AN/AE is still required. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• The header uses the phrase "Modifying or overturning" while the first sentence uses "overturn or reduce". This leaves unclear whether admins require consent/consensus to increase sanctions or modify them in a way that is neither increasing nor reducing them (e.g. perhaps clarifying of scope). The easiest way to correct this is probably to change the first sentence to "modify, overturn or reduce" (if that is the Committee's intention). Thryduulf ( talk) 09:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have changed all "modify" to "reduce". The idea is that the consent of the imposing admin (or that of ArbCom etc.) is not required to modify in peius a sanction. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
    • For those not having had the benefit of Continental European legal training, reformatio in peius means making a sanction more severe. So... does this mean we are allowed to issue sanctions in Latin? This may be one way to limit appeals :-)  Sandstein  10:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
      • If only we could. Arbitrator in utroque jure sounds lovely... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
      • ( edit conflict) Thanks for the translation, Latin isn't a language I've had opportunity to learn. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
        • If sanctions may be issued in Latin, then all classical languages must be treated equally (international encyclopedia, remember). Therefore, I look forward to soon being able to issue mine in 文言文! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
          • 48 6f 77 20 61 62 6f 75 74 20 74 68 65 20 6e 61 74 69 76 65 20 6c 61 6e 67 75 61 67 65 20 6f 66 20 63 6f 6d 70 75 74 65 72 73 0d 0a? NE Ent 10:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Without having had the time to fully think it through, I'm initially concerned about the possibility of a situation where a sanction is discussed at a noticeboard, which results in (a) no consensus to increase it, (b) consensus to reduce it, or (c) consensus against increasing it. Without further action by any party an administrator who dislikes the result unilaterally increases the sanction. Discussion, that was potentially long and divided then has to happen all over again alongside debate about the relative weight of various policies. I don't want to see that happen, but the current wording would seem to do nothing to prevent it. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
      • The reason for the possibility of imposing more severe sanctions without having to obtain the imposing admin's consent (etc.) is that if a sanction turns out to be inadequate, there should not be a need to jump through hoops to extend the scope of the restriction in question. I don't think that what you fear would ever happen, mainly because an admin who imposed a sanction against consensus would be dragged before ArbCom rather quickly and his actions would be undone. There is the possibility that, although there is no consensus to increase a sanction, an admin may unilaterally increase it all the same, yes. But I don't see this as a problem, honestly; the idea behind discretionary sanctions is to have someone who can break the deadlock, in those cases where the community cannot come to a conclusion on their own. And, as usual, if people disagree, they can appeal to arbcom. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is at present no stated requirement to log any changes made under this section. Not logging changes could very easily lead to confusion about what sanctions are active, etc. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Whenever a sanction is modified or lifted, a note should be appended to the original log entry. Is there really a need to specify it? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Imo, yes. It removes any ambiguity and serves as a reminder to everyone taking such actions. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I have just added "[w]henever a sanction is modified or lifted, the administrator who alters the restriction must append a note to the original log entry" in the "logging" section. Wordsmithing is welcome. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• As a matter of curiosity, what would happen if enforcement was being discussed simultaneously on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and the Administrators' noticeboard, and the two groups came to somewhat different conclusions? Does one discussion take precedence, or would there be a requirement to generate a consensus between the two groups? It might be a bit unlikely, but I don't personally consider it that unlikely, as these things can be raised in several different forums at once, and different groups of people frequently reach different conclusions based on much the same data. -- Merlinme ( talk) 16:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Per several people above, the statement SHOULD say "all participating editors". In AN discussions, admins are NOT given special status in counting towards consensus. For all open discussions at Wikipedia, all people are equal. Admins do not count for more in determining consensus of ANY situation. -- Jayron 32 14:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That's what I came here to say. I'll also ask this question: if the opinions of non-admins "would not count", as Salvio says above, why on earth would any non-admin bother to say anything in the first place? Even if I had something really important to say that no one else had thought of, I'd assume there was no point, and I'd have to choose either to keep silent or seek out an admin willing to say it for me. Not good. Rivertorch ( talk) 19:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Appeals

Original section

• This is simplified. The role of ArbCom to determine consensus in a community discussion has gone, because it involved ArbCom - unnecessarily in my view - in micro-management. What we have instead is bright lines that clear consensus is needed. Hopefully it will lead to fewer clarification/amendment requests, which can be frustrating for the people making the request and a huge time sink for everyone.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• This looks broadly workable. A few suggestions:

• Limit appeals to one or two of the three available venues. As written, the rules would allow an appeal of a sanction first to the enforcing administrator, then to a noticeboard, and then to the Committee. That, all together, can be a huge time sink for all involved.
• Extend the six-month rule to noticeboard appeals also, for the same reasons.
• Prescribe one noticeboard as a forum for appeals, not a choice among two.
• Prescribe a format of the appeal discussion, such as per the template {{ Arbitration enforcement appeal}} that is now routinely used at AE. A structured discussion is imperative, in my view, if only to be able to ascertain who among the participants is an uninvolved administrator.  Sandstein  08:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, all avenues of appeal should be made available to editors. It may be prudent to require them be applied sequentially. It's not clear why an appeal to ArbCom would be a time waste to AE admins -- they're not required to participate in the arbcom discussion, are they? NE Ent 13:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Sandstein: I agree with NE Ent that all venues should be accessible, as a safety net if nothing else. I understand that it might be time-consuming, but is it really a different process than the current block appeals process? I added a sentence allowing the closing administrator to prohibit appeals. I wonder if there is a better way to do this though; maybe one appeal, after that you have to go through ArbCom? If I recall correctly, the reason that a little bit of choice was given about which noticeboard one could appeal to is because there is sometimes a perception that AE gets for groupthink (which I personally don't share but it's out there), and this is meant to give people another option if they want it. And  Done with regards to the template. NW ( Talk) 16:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• What's the difference between "unclear" and "difficult to ascertain"?

• I don't think there is one, and have removed it, but perhaps Roger will be able to clarify. NW ( Talk) 16:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is a different. Unclear means there is no consensus, or opinion is divided. Difficult to ascertain means that some views do not actually express support for a particular outcome. AGK [•] 20:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Subsequently implies, but does not make clear, than one of the prior steps is required or desired before AC appeal -- this should be clarified. NE Ent 13:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed.   Roger Davies ^talk 17:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I could see a reason for ignoring step #1 in certain, rare circumstances. It is clear that ArbCom appeal must follow a noticeboard appeal, and I think that is all that is required. NW ( Talk) 16:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Change "To request that the enforcing administrator reconsider, if the administrator still has their permissions." to "To request that the enforcing administrator reconsider unless they are no longer an administrator." (Unless ya'll actually mean something different -- if they were an admin/CU, and are now just an admin ... I don't think you mean that.) NE Ent 13:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No, not quite, @ NE Ent:. It applies to situations where an admin temporarily relinquishes the tools and switches them on and off. It means that if they don't have the permission active at all material times, they're not an admin. In other words, someone who is on a admin-break cannot suddenly start dishing out sanctions. The objective is to define an admin as someone who actually has the tools at the time of their actions, not someone who request that access to the tools can be turned on.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done NW ( Talk) 16:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Just reviewing some of the tweaks. This one is not very helpful because it's circular.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You might also want to allow for administrators who are not presently active. While this is unlikely to be an issue for immediate appeals, appeals may be made at any time. If I wanted to appeal a restriction placed three months ago by WormThatTurned (for example) it would not be fair to make me wait until he returned before doing so. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

@ NuclearWarfare: my above comment about inactive admins appears to have been missed. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that falls into the WP:BURO side of things a little more than we want (though I admit, we've got a losing battle there already. I can't anticipate anyone objecting to an immediate or post-24 hours after request appeal to the noticeboards, even if you haven't received a yes or no answer from the sanctioning administrator yet. NW ( Talk) 15:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The system specifies that an appeal has to be submitted to the blocking administrator. It doesn't specify that the appeal has to be completed before one is submitted to AE. AGK [•] 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Having a special standard for discretionary sanction appeals at AN, that is different from most other AN discussions, strikes me as a bad idea. While the AE noticeboard already works on the basis of admin consensus, and that is fine, if discretionary sanction appeals are to be heard at WP:AN then the opinions of all univolved editors should be considered in determining consensus. At most a limitation on closing such discussions to admins may be warranted. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose my primary concern is the ability of involved editors to interfere. Disputes usually end up at ArbCom because the community cannot deal with them (and if they could have dealt with them, they would have). I'm not at all clear how well AN is set up to identify and discount the opinions of very involved editors. Indeed, although the concept of involved editor might be fine, there isn't really consensus about an "involved editor" actually is. I can see sideshows about whether or not someone is involved, with mates piling in on both sides, quickly rendering its effectiveness limited. This is essentially what happened with the Climate Change community noticeboard.   Roger Davies ^talk 17:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Practice at AE over the last year or so has been to use separate sections for involved editors (unthreaded statements only), uninvolved editors and administrators, and to decide appeals by consensus of administrators. This seems to have worked well and without controversy. I share Roger Davies's concerns:

• First, administrators are people who have volunteered, were elected for, and often have long experience in make difficult policy-based decisions and recusing when involved, so on average I expect their opinion to be (a) neutral and (b) in line with policy more often than the opinion of random editors. Administrators also know that they are subject to ArbCom scrutiny should they choose to intervene in AE matters while involved, and may lose their administratorship over it. Other editors are not in practice subject to any scrutiny or consequences.
• Second, very many of the editors who choose to comment in community noticeboard discussions about conduct issues are not a representative sample of the editorial community at large, but are there because they have some interest in the underlying dispute or some prior involvement with the involved editors, or may have been canvassed offwiki. (For example, in a recent somewhat irregular appeal to ANI of a sanction I enacted, many participants explicitly registered an opinion only to signal their disapproval of past sanctions by me against themselves or their friends.)
• Third, for these reasons, I expect almost every appeal decision in which non-administrators' opinions is taken into account to be tainted with serious controversy and mind-numbingly long discussions about whose opinion should be taken into account. This would likely render most noticeboard appeals ineffective, because, per the rules, the status quo prevails in case of doubt.

For these reasons, I recommend maintaining current practice, that is, to base appeals on the consensus of uninvolved administrators. (Still better, I think, would be WP:BASC, who can act faster, process private evidence and help shape a consistent enforcement practice).  Sandstein  18:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Formally taking away the right of non-administrators to "vote" (in the loosest sense of the word) on DS appeals is certainly not pleasant, but it will make the system far simpler and far more effective. Ascertaining whether an administrator is involved or not is easy; distinguishing between involved and uninvolved editors, on the other hand, is in practical terms an utter nightmare. AGK [•] 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

An appeal at AN should mean the consensus of the community can overturn the sanction. Presently the wording implies only uninvolved administrators voting at AN will count towards a consensus. That needs to be corrected as I do not believe it was the intent.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was: that was the opinion of the majority of arbs who chimed in. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case appeals should be limited to AE. It's much better structured to allow separate admin and non admin input. NE Ent 14:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I tend to agree, if discussion happens at AN, consensus should consider all uninvolved editors. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Also agree that AN is an unsuitable venue for appeal if only administrators' opinion is included in the consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked the Committee cannot alter policy, which explicitly states any ArbCom restriction is subject to community appeal.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The only appeal provision the committee may not alter is the one found at [8] which does not include appeal to the community. Any community appeal provisions have been created as procedures, that the committee is free to modify or rescind. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNBAN is policy and explicitly includes appeal to the community. Again, altering policy is outside the Committee's remit.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That policy is about sanctions imposed by the community, not by administrators under the authority of ArbCom. While I personally disagree with this provision, it's not against policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Check again, Salvio. See "reversal of bans" where it plainly indicates that admins can reverse other administrative actions stemming from an arbitration remedy if there is a community consensus.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's ArbCom AE process, specifically from this motion.   Roger Davies ^talk 19:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Now I feel dumb, I hadn't noticed that part (I was reading only the "Appeals and discussions" section); I have therefore struck my previous comment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the community handling it if there was an effective way of filtering out involved editors and if the process of identifying and excluding involved editors didn't in itself result in massive drama. It is not unheard of for ArbCom cases to have dozens of participants and we've all seen cases that disintegrate into slangiung matches. If you can suggest some language (and a process) to cover this, and I'm all ears.   Roger Davies ^talk 17:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure your concern is really founded, to be honest... If we analyse the charlie foxtrot which was the AN appeal against the restriction Sandstein mentions hereinabove, which was one of the most unreasonable sanctions I have ever seen, in the end there was no consensus to lift it. So, I think that only the most capricious sanctions would ever be lifted. That said, assuming, for the sake of the argument, that the process could indeed break down and that a sanctioned editor should manage to summon a posse of friends and get his restriction revoked, there would still be a safety net: the imposing admin could always seize ArbCom to get the community's decision overturned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with sanctions sometimes being overturned; admins aren't infallable. What I am seeking to avoid is a series of vicious bunfights masquerading as appeals. The danger comes of this not only from the appellant stuffing the discussion with his mates; but his opponents stuffing the discussion with sufficient of their mates to prevent a clear consensus forming. Various attempts to deal with the R&I topic went his way, resulting in 20 or 30 processes as everything, but everything, was wiki-lawyered into oblivion.   Roger Davies ^talk 19:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, under the current system, a sanctioned editor can already appeal to AN (or ANI); how often has that happened? How often has such a discussion turned into a mess? I know that someone, sooner or later, will cause a healthy dose of drama, appealing a sanction on AN, but I believe this will be a rare occurrence (and, by the way, in my opinion, the only good way to limit drama on wiki would be to close down both AN and ANI and not to restrict who can participate in an appeal discussion)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't turned out much better than it would have at AE the couple times I have seen it in practice. Perhaps even significantly worse. I think that keeping appeals at AE and allowing notification at AN might be a better strategy than allowing the choice of AE/AN. NW ( Talk) 17:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Salvio giuliano: I don't think there have been more than a handful of appeals to AN. This needs to change so that they handle a fair share of the load. However, if my experience at BASC is anything to go by, the reason is has been sidelined for AE appeals is because most people would rather stay banned/sanctioned than go to AN. What they want is proper review of their actions and those of the imposing admin. The proposal here is an attempt to deliver this. Other ideas welcome.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• • The proposal that the determining factor in whether an appeal is successful be determined by a consensus of uninvolved admins, as opposed to uninvolved editors in general, seems to me to be controversial, and I don't think that's surprising, since it's a change from the current wording which was established by AC in the past. I am not disputing their remit to alter this, but I do think the reasoning ought to be made very clear to the community first. Salvio's indicated above that this was an opinion of a majority of arbs who chimed in. Could we get input from them to understand why? I don't think that's unreasonable to ask. (Not addressing this at Roger or Salvio, since their opinions are already here for us to see.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's worth noting that this is the de facto manner in which all AE appeals have worked Heimstern. Even if de jure an editor can appeal to AN I have never seen it done and would not advise it (the tendency of the comments sections to go off on tangents is amazing at AE and would be magnified at AN). Furthermore the role of ACDS in relation to sysop accountability is important. It is one of the clearest instances in which an Admin will be desysoped for misbehaviour - it is also the definition of a functionary's duty (a decision is already made by ArbCom and sysops check if the current issues falls within it or not). Unless or until non-sysops can be held accountable for their actions/comments/!votes at an AE/AN appeal of AC/DS I see no reason to pretend that the decision is (for lack of a better word) a "democratic" one; or to compound the legalistic problems at ACDS appeals by making it more like a jury system. But these are my opinions and I do agree that some elucidation from the Arbs would be useful (becuase I've been asked about this WRT the sections at AE multiple times)-- Cailil ^talk 10:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sequencing While partially addressed above by NW, I wonder if it would be helpful to be more explicit about the sequencing of the steps.

Here are some rules that I think are valid, only one of which is explicit:

1. Step 1 is optional
2. Step 3 cannot be done prior to a resolution of a step 2 appeal (this one is clear)
3. Step 1 cannot be done after step 2.
4. Step 1 cannot be done after step 3.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• @ SPhilbrick: With regards to step 1, I think any administrator should be able to reverse their sanction at any time. Once you take out of the question the people who might jump from steps 2 or 3 to step 1, I'm not really sure it's necessary to tell people they need to appeal to AE then ArbCom (or vice versa). What advantages would there be to an arbitrary sequence of appeal venues like that? AGK [•] 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• These are significant changes to the existing process. The current process requires "consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI) (emphasis mine). I don't think it's a good idea to exclude the community from the consensus building process. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• @ A Quest For Knowledge: Ascertaining whether an administrator is involved is quite easy, but distinguishing between involved and uninvolved editors is nearly impossible. We can either have community consensus gamed by the appellant's opponents and all their pals (but keep playing the charade of honouring community consensus), or we can let the people that are implementing the decision also make it. Neither choice is very pleasant, but I think the latter is far more sensible. See also Cailil's comment from 15 September, above. AGK [•] 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• What about appeals against Page restrictions? I don't find a way or venue in this review where one can appeal against such a restriction. -- SMS ^Talk 12:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I welcome the move to open up appeals to AN rather than channeling all appeals back to ArbCom, which I think works best when it does arbitration, rather than being a single point through which all issue related to long-term disputes must be routed (those who've studied management will surely know that the virtues of centralisation are tempting, but also lead to overwork and some more subtle problems in decision-making).
However, I'm disappointed that it's worded in terms of "uninvolved administrators". Of course, some (not all) disputes get to ArbCom because miscreants have allies and supporters, without whom they would have been uncontroversially blocked much earlier in the dispute lifecycle, so it's not unreasonable to worry about appeals being influenced by the editor's allies. Nonetheless, that's what the word uninvolved is for. Narrowing down the field to mop-holders does not address that problem; instead, it's a step away from the community decision-making which is at the heart of this encyclopædia. I plead that the wording should be changed to something like this:

A clear consensus of participating uninvolved editors at WP:AN is required to overturn the sanction

Of course, in practice, AN is still administrator-heavy, and threads are generally closed by administrators, so in reality there's only a small difference - but the principle is important. ArbCom has been doing a good job of solving intractable problems that the community as a whole couldn't solve; but if certain parts of the workflow are to be handed back, they should go to the community, rather than a narrow subset of the community. bobrayner ( talk) 02:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; if non-admin editors' opinions are taken into account, then it will for practical purposes be impossible for the closer to adequately determine who is involved and who isn't; and this question would almost certainly give rise to huge volumes of argument for every controversial appeal. Also, in principle, discretionary sanctions are supposed to give relatively wide discretion to the sanctioning admin, and a non-admin discussion will tend not to respect this discretion, but will insist on assessing every case de novo, substituting the community's opinion's for the admin's, making such discussions indistinguishable from normal AN sanctions discussions.

With respect to the forum, I've indicated above that I don't think that leaving appellants the choice of forum (AN or AE) works very well, if only because this complicates archival and closing procedures. I recommend to choose one forum (in my view, AE is better suited because all the templates and setup are already in place), and to require that a notification is made at the other forum (in the same way that new Arb noticeboard entries are announced at AN).  Sandstein  10:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is there a reason why taking non-admin input suddenly makes it "impossible" to see who is/isn't involved? If somebody has assumed that admins can't be involved, well, that's an awful assumption on which to base rulemaking.

Judging the community consensus is not always easy, but I feel that it's worth it, as it's a cornerstone of the encyclopædia. bobrayner ( talk) 22:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Appeals to ArbCom - Is it a vote or is consensus required?

What's the current policy (or practice) for ArbCom to overturn a sanction on appeal? Is it a vote or is consensus required? For example, if an editor appeals a sanction and 6 Arbs support lifting the sanction and 4 oppose lifting the sanction, does it pass? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom does not undertake any affirmative action except by vote (although declining to act is often done by consensus of the Arbs who show up). So in your case, if 10 were the total number of Arbs on the Committee, the sanction would be lifted. If there were 13 Arbs on the Committee an three of them didn't register an opinion but were still otherwise active, the sanction would not be lifted. NW ( Talk) 20:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@ NuclearWarfare: Thanks, that's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. The new wording says that "a consensus of arbitrators is required to overturn the decision". Is this change intentional? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Continuity

Original section

• This effectively downgrades all existing warnings to notifications and should serve to remove the stigma that some editors perceive in being warned. At some point, after this stuff is implemented, the individual logs could be updated to reflect the change from warning to alert.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• full force -> force NE Ent 13:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Of all the changes I think this is the best and most major improvement. The time sink that has been "I want to appeal a warning" needed to stop. Overall the whole "Alerts and edit notices" puts into policy what has been established practice at AE from year dot-- Cailil ^talk 10:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is a work in progress, so all comments welcome.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for undertaking the work to review this process and to clarify the issues that have arisen in its application. At a glance, this seems like a very well thought-out and concisely drafted set of rules. I'll probably have comments about individual parts.  Sandstein  08:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Vast improvement. NE Ent 13:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the updated version. I think it's much clearer and concise. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we safely assume that all changes to existing processes must achieve consensus?

• Administrative note: AQFK's comment below was made in continuation of the thread above, which has since been archived. AGK [•] 20:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

True, but which ArbCom member when running for ArbCom explicitly stated their intent to exclude the community from overturning ArbCom's decisions? I suggest that that number approaches zero. In fact, if I had to guess, the vast majority of the community are unaware that this discussion is even taking place. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge: That's why we have opened this consultation, and are publicising it as widely as possible. Can you think of a better way to consult the community about these changes? AGK [•] 23:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@ AGK: Have notices been posted at the Village Pump and AN? Perhaps, they have, and I simply missed it. I believe that it's also possible to post a notice on editor's Watchlist. Has this been done? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge: Before this consultation went live, we had scheduled for there to be a second round of announcements sent out a week or two into the process. I've just sent those announcements out, and I included the Village Pump this time. In the original round of announcements, AN actually was included. Also, in this batch of announcements, I included WT:DRN, Template:Cent, several other important community pages, and I'm also going to look into a Watchlist advertisement, again by your suggestion. Thanks! AGK [•] 20:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@ AGK: Thanks, that is greatly appreciated. However, there are about 14 different discussions going on. It might be confusing for someone to suddenly jump into the middle of all of this. Perhaps we should reboot the discussion? Right now, the biggest source of disagreement seems to be whether Edit Notices are sufficient to serve as alerts. There's also what appears to be a mistake in the wording of one of the section. [9] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Continuing the archived discussion (no idea why it was archived) it's also possible for the community to change the arbcom policy so if the community feels strongly that ArbCom are overstretching their remit here we need only get a 100 signatures and then a majority to change the policy to not allow them to do this. Personally I'd be much in favour of this idea for reasons I give on my user page and which aren't strictly relevant here. Dpmuk ( talk) 02:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Dpmuk: You still haven't explained why you think this draft ought to be stopped through the hundred-signature process. AGK [•] 09:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Because there's nothing specific about this draft. I think ArbCom making all substantive rules in this way should be stopped as I explain more on my user page and why I said it wasn't strictly relevant. I wanted to remind people it was an option and the reason I said I'd like to see it done was because I'd like to see ArbCom's power's reigned in and I'm not too bother on exactly what topic that occurs. I suggest you read my user page for my full view on this as it's not really relevant to this discussion. Dpmuk ( talk) 18:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

A real life example

The current system has checks and balances. Should Arbitration make a mistake, there's an alternate avenue for appeal. These proposed changes remove this check and balance. Has anyone proposed an alternate check and balance to replace the one that is being proposed to be removed?

The community does perform an important role in this process. I'd like to point everyone's attention at the following discussion which I see as a successful example of where the community played an important role in the dispute resolution process without any drama. [10] I'd also like to direct everyone's attention and in particular @ NuclearWarfare:'s attention to which community member closed the discussion. [11] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Where it just went totally awry were the sanctions on TM articles were unjustly slapped upon User:Littleoliveoil, when she was attacked by a notorious troll, IRWolfie, who also tried to "out" someone (her, I think, I only peripherally followed this, as I had other drama to attend to elsewhere). She gets a six month smackdown by a single user who used SOMEONE ELSE'S EDIT as "evidence," and Wolfie gets cautioned not to out anyone connected with TM. I know TM articles are controversial, but olive is one of the nicest editors I know and was not edit-warring. I've tangled with Wolfie elsewhere and he is a master of WP:BAITing. Not enough checks and balances. Should, at a minimum, have two admins on any imposition of sanctions beyond 24 hours or else an automatic review of some other source. You can find the links on olive's page or I can provide diffs if anyone wants to see them. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Montanabw: I haven't looked but has this been appealed?   Roger Davies ^talk 05:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, Roger, I'm trying to disengage from the drama boards as much as possible. (Not easy to do... sigh) But the point is that the "discretionary" sanction was abused and the wrong person now has to appeal, which is total crap. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Montanabw: @ Roger Davies: This is a bit of a mischaracterization. The AE thread was this one: [12]. At this discussion, and again here, there were a lot of accusations against IRWolfie. One, an inappropriate speculation on an editor's real-life identity, was substantiated. This was not a gross violation, as the information had been previously disclosed but was subsequently removed. IRWolfie indicated that (s)he understood this was inappropriate and would not repeat the behavior, and I enacted a ban on it just for clarity that it is not to happen again. At that point, any further sanction would have been purely punitive.

I don't believe edit warring was ever brought up, so while it's true that no edit warring was occurring (or at least brought up at the case), that's not what the ban was for. It was, instead, for inappropriate discussion conduct. Littleolive oil did appeal that restriction to me, and I provided her with some concrete examples of the behavior that was problematic: [13]. All those edits are hers, not someone else's, so I'm not clear where that characterization comes from either. I'm rather tired of continually having this thrown around as somehow done on my personal whim. Three uninvolved admins (me, Sandstein, and Clreland) examined this case. Sandstein declined to take action himself but explicitly said he didn't object to someone else doing so, while Clreland agreed with my assessment. The thread stayed open for several days thereafter for further input and discussion. As is often the case at AE, opinion among editors involved in the issue was sharply polarized along both sides. If Olive would like to appeal it further, she certainly can do that, but I do not feel the outcome was unreasonable or unjustifiable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Seraphimblade: Thanks for providing your perspective on this.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge: It is difficult to strike the correct balance between giving ample opportunity for appeal and sensibly using community (and committee) resources. However, I think the three-tier appeals system proposed by the draft constitutes an adequate system of, as you call them, checks and balances. AGK [•] 20:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@ AGK: Unfortunately, the community is getting increasingly pushed out of the decision-making process and power is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. I'm starting to wonder if we need a separate body, perhaps comprised of regular editors (non-admins), in which editors can file appeals. I'm not sure if such a proposal can gain consensus, but it's something that may be worth exploring. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge: The reality is that more and more peripheral things are ending up on ArbCom's plate, and adding massively to work load, because the community is unable to make binding decisions either about ways forward or practical resolution of day to day matters. The list includes: granting/removal of CU/OS permissions, community ban appeals, and desysopping. I'd love to get rid of most of this stuff and most of my colleagues share that view.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: I understand your concerns. Having a separate body to handle appeals would alleviate some of this work. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually AQfK what you are suggesting is that non-admins make decisions about blocks and bans. While it might be possible for non-admins to form a consensus about a ban no non-admin CAN unblock or change a block. It's functionally impossible. The WMF is quite clear that the block and delete buttons will only be granted via RFA. This is how WE the community vet users' judgement in using such tools. The major issue with AE is accountability. Sysops ARE accountable (especially vis-a-vis AE actions). They're also elected by the community. As are Arbs. Randy in Boise is not elected or accountable and his judgement is untested. How does giving him 'authority' help? Who selects this body - is it self selecting like WP:PITCHFORKS (Ani redirects there for a reason)? Or is a chosen few (which would contradict your point above)?. Another solution to your hypothesis is more ppl standing at RFA and thus becoming accountable to the community-- Cailil ^talk 20:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not a logical argument; that's like saying only bureaucrats should be able to participate in Rfas because only they can grant the sysop bit. Most decisions on Wikipedia are made by the unelected self selected. NE Ent 03:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually my point is perfectly logical. Only someone who is accountable for there actions in block and unblocking is allowed the bit. When a sysop takes action under Discretionary Sanctions they cannot plead "even if it is against the rules I was convinced by User:X's argument". This area is not the same as others. Admins are under pain of de-sysoping if they don't follow the rules. Where's the check and balance if those !voting are not accountable?

The comparison you make is apples with oranges. Sysops are elected by community consensus not by 'Crats - just like pages are deleted by consensus at Xfd etc. But AC/DS actions are mandated to admins by the ArbCom - because the community has already failed to resolve the area under dispute. An RfAr only happens in that situation not in a functional collegial consensus based environment-- Cailil ^talk 11:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to accommodate various clarifications and amendments and All comments are very welcome. (See top of main page.) AQfK has made a proposal which may or may not be accepted for consideration by the committee. Saying it's invalid for a new procedure because it's not the same as the existing procedure misses the point of "amendment." The "community" which has failed to resolve an issue includes admins, so that's not a compelling argument for anything. NE Ent 09:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to ARCA

Overall I think this tightens up the loopholes and reduces the legalese. But one thing stands out for me and that is the relationship of AE to Requests/Clarification and Amendment. IMO it should address how someone can jump from a (failing) AE request to WP:ARCA. We have such an issue there right now in the Race and Intelligence case. We had one previously when a group of users sanctioned under WP:TROUBLES tried to supersede WP:AE's appeal process and "go straight to ArbCom". NYB has already made quite an incisive comment there saying "an editor shouldn't ordinarily be allowed to open a thread here seeking to preempt a pending sanction that is under discussion against [them]". Could this be added in?-- Cailil ^talk 11:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Cailil: I do agree such situations are best avoided, but I think you have swapped the cause and effect: most of the time, these clarification requests relate to the loopholes with discretionary sanctions. Close the loopholes, and you give people no grounds to open a wikilawyering Clarification request. AGK [•] 20:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

l also agree it's best avoided and will probably try to incorporate Brad's wording, or similar, in a later draft.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I agree. In general, I think interlocutory appeals should not be allowed, but I wouldn't exclude them in toto: there may be occasions, where it's much more reasonable to stop an AE thread dead in its tracks before it reaches a conclusion, instead of waiting for a sanction to be imposed and then go through the various appeals to have the restriction lifted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh I agree Salvio but I think there should more of a process and less of a freeforall. There are indeed times (and more than currently occur) where AE threads should be frozen or stopped in favour of a Clarification. Just as long as it's not used as a method to waste everybody's time or evade a sanction-- Cailil ^talk 14:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the language of discretionary sanctions in the past to try to understand what it means, what the point of it is and what difference it makes. I never found out. This latest consultation is flagged at centralised discussion and so I've looked over these discussions and I'm still baffled. My impression is that administrators already have untrammeled power to sanction ordinary editors as they see fit, using the blocking function to enforce their decisions. So, what's the point of all this fuss, please? Isn't this all unnecessary per WP:CREEP and WP:BURO? If there is some key point to this which I'm missing, could someone please describe it succinctly. Warden ( talk) 15:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, admins are quite trammeled. First of all, WP:ADMINACCT means they have to make some sort of (minimally) perfunctory reply to questions about their actions and if an ordinary admin action is really bad it can be brought to the community boards an another admin can repair the situation. A bad admin action under the veil of ACDS however carries the imprimatur of ArbCom and can't be reversed except at the more admin friendly-with-the-scary-pink-warning-at-top-our-boomerangs-really-hurt AE board. An editor is much better off with an ordinary unjust action than an ACDS unjust action. NE Ent 13:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to NE Ent's vision of AE, I actually consider the appeals process for AE actions to be just as robust (if not more robust) than the appeals process for "ordinary" administrator actions. Appeals under the DS system are designed to (and in practice do) reverse unjust sanctions.

@ Colonel Warden: Actually, administrators are not permitted to sanction editors at will. I couldn't, for example, decide right now to sanction you from "editing any page relating to Balloons", then block you if you edited Hot air balloon. The community would have to hold a vote (on WP:ANI or some similar page) that supported sanctioning you in such a way; I could then block you for editing Hot air baloon, under the community's authority. However, if the committee had passed discretionary sanctions for "all pages relating to Balloons", then I could at my discretion topic ban you – so long as you had been made aware that discretionary sanctions are authorised. As a result of all this, a full community vote doesn't have to be had for every sanction; sysops don't have to refer every proposed sanction to ANI for a full community vote. The system compensates by instituting a formal appeals process for sanctions imposed, and placing the whole system under the immediate supervision of ArbCom (which has a policy of desysopping any administrator who misuses discretionary sanctions). This system has been in place for some years, and is used only for those topic areas that need a steady hand. AGK [•] 19:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't this just mean that the harshest, most unreasonable or most uncompromising admin gets his way? Is there any good way to guard against that? It seems to me this system is designed to ensure the harshest penalties get applied by the most unreasonable people, and it's set up to be quite hard for reasonable people to mitigate that. Everyking ( talk) 00:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The best way is to try to get the better editors the sysop bit and elect them to the committee, encourage the better admins and (gently) push back on the "could use improvement" admins. NE Ent 10:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

AGK, how often has ArbCom desysopped an admin for misusing discretionary sanctions? Or even requested that he stop participating in AE threads owing to unreasonableness? To my knowledge, this has never happened... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@ Salvio giuliano: - SlimVirgin was desysoped in 2008 for "disruption of the arbitration enforcement process" and at least in that Committee's view ABF towars other sysops [14]. Dreadstar was "reminded" to follow protocol in 2011 [15] and Sandstein was advised re: effective communication [16]. Both of these cases are the basis for admins not being able to unilaterally reverse AE blocks. So yes there have been admins admonished (Dreadstar) and desysoped (SV). I'm not personally aware of other cases-- Cailil ^talk 14:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of those cases. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

For a relevant case that depicts the opposite side of the situation, the committee essentially desysopped Trusilver for overturning an arbitration enforcement action without obtaining a consensus of the community or committee. I think the general impression given by these cases is that the committee will not tolerate administrators acting improperly in the field of arbitration enforcement. Nonetheless, even if, hypothetically, no administrators had ever been sanctioned for AE-related misconduct, that would not mean the committee was unwilling to do so. AGK [•] 16:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As -- to use the pejorative -- "dramahboards" go, AE functions relatively well. The nature of its scope is such the more nitpicky squabbles generally don't reach it, rarely is the situation "urgent" in any sense, the structure of the comments help and responding admins tend not to be hasty and to discuss and form consensus before reaching a decision. The seriousness and difficulty of the issues seem to filter the admins that respond to the more dedicated and thoughtful, and the community nature of the admin participation and the fact AE is referencing editor behavior to specific arbcom decisions rather than the incoherent morass of wikipedia policy and practice all tend make AE one of the least problematic dispute resolution forums. NE Ent 09:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with user:Colonel Warden (Creeeeeepy'')

Thank you, Col. Warden - I agree with you. Wikipedia should get rid off 50% of the present admins. Might becom more human & suitable. There are too many Robot-like admins here. No sense in discussing other matters, before this will have changed. I'm tired on unhappy Wikipedia Admins, that spend their time to spoil up the pages and categories that other users created. Ref.: Dying project ( talk) 16:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I was contemplating logging an issue at WP:AE but I found that the discretionary sanctions in question had been imposed by "the community" rather than Arbcom, i.e. a brief discussion at WP:AN. The relevant text and links are at {{ Castewarningtalk}}. What's not clear to me is whether one would go to WP:AE to have such sanctions enforced or what. What's the difference between community-imposed sanctions and arbcom-imposed sanctions? The draft under discussion doesn't seem to help. And are General sanctions the same as discretionary sanctions or not? Clear as mud... Warden ( talk) 22:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

General sanctions are functionally very similar to discretionary sanctions. GS are adopted by a community discussion at WP:AN and can be enforced by any administrator. Both reports of violations and appeals of GS go to WP:AN (possibly WP:ANI for the former). The community can add GS to a topic, and they can remove it.

A confusing thing is that general sanctions and discretionary sanctions sometimes overlap. For example, in addition to {{ Castewarningtalk}}, Wikipedia:ARBIPA#Standard discretionary sanctions also exists. That just means you can pick whichever (but not both generally, per WP:ADMINSHOP) route you would like to go through for reporting a violation. NW ( Talk) 23:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the WP:GS page, the whole thing seems to be a dog's dinner. You have article probation, discretionary sanctions, 1RR and various special cases. The community-mandated sanctions seem especially confusing. The castewarning stuff doesn't appear in the table there, for one thing. And the language of the cases that do appear say things like "Discretionary sanctions that mimic WP:ARBPIA". This seems to be suggesting that an arbitrary clique of admins can appoint themselves arbcom-for-the-day, quickly pass a resolution and then claim equivalent status to a motion passed by arbcom after weeks of painstaking evidence and judgement. Where's the democratic accountability in that? Do the community sanctions follow the same process as arbcom sanctions when it comes to enforcement? If admins outside the original group disagree and revert blocks, will they be desysopped? The word discretionary seems to mean that the process is largely unclear and unexplored and so the outcome is at the discretion of whoever appoints themself as enforcer. Warden ( talk) 20:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• @ Colonel Warden: Obviously, General Sanctions (GS) are outside of the scope of this discussion; but the best answer I can think of is that they are typically imposed by the community as a last resort, and with adequate opportunity for the editors subsequently sanctioned to appeal to the community at AN just as other sanctioned editors would appeal to AE. I do not think a grossly unjust system has been created (although the system is certainly, as you say, much messier and less streamlined than Discretionary Sanctions is). AGK [•] 14:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The note at the head of the project page says "Discretionary sanctions were first introduced in 2009, and arrived at their current form in 2011". This is followed by a 'Nutshell' statement telling readers that "Discretionary sanctions is a procedure authorised by the Arbitration Committee on a topic by topic basis. It provides administrators with a fast-track method for dealing with contentious or disruptive conduct within the specified areas of conflict."

The statement 'Discretionary sanctions is a procedure' tells Wikipedia editors and readers nothing. How do 'discretionary sanctions' differ from the sanctions administrators routinely impose on Wikipedia? What do the 'discretionary sanctions' consist of, i.e. what is the nature and range of penalties administrators can impose under this 'procedure'? How does an editor of a particular page know that discretionary sanctions are in effect for that page? That's what readers of the page want to know. Consider, for example, the statement "Martial law was first introduced in (fill in date)...Martial law is a procedure authorised by the government on a case by case basis". What would that tell citizens? Nothing. NinaGreen ( talk) 17:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of defining anything when admins don't follow defined rules? WP:AC/DS has defined that Sanctions should be imposed after due warning by uninvolved admin. In my case, an involved admin talked something about DS in course of discussion. [17] After few days he used that edit to convince other admins to sanction me. [18] [19] If admins don't give damn to rules, what's the point of defining rules? BTW, why not categorize such articles under special category or place some template above articles to make users aware about this DS thing? I was taken aback and I am banned for 3 months. Abhi ( talk) 18:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Definition is key. The phrase 'Discretionary sanctions' sounds vaguely official, and somewhat reminiscent of the United Nations. But Wikipedia administrators routinely use their discretion in dealing with conflict on the thousands of Wikipedia topics which are not subject to 'Discretionary sanctions', so what does 'Discretionary sanctions' actually mean? If it cannot be properly defined in a way which will allow Wikipedia editors and users to understand it, and to understand how it differs from the discretion routinely exercised by administrators in imposing sanctions on all the other topics not covered by 'Discretionary sanctions', and if a complete list of the topics and/or articles covered by 'Discretionary sanctions' cannot be provided so that it can be easily accessed by all Wikipedia editors and users, then perhaps 'Discretionary sanctions' shouldn't exist, because something which can't be defined, and which people affected by it can't understand because of lack of information, is obviously open to abuse. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Or, to phrase it in Wikipedia form, " ^{citation needed}". ;-) I routinely run into extremist reverters that aggressively demand I impeccably reference even the most painfully obvious or universally known. (The bane of the marginal topics & articles, where self-appointed vigilantes roam unchecked.) So why would admins be above the law, and in a major issue at that?

I too don't really get that "Discretionary" nuance/definition, and how it is more than mere ornamental legal blah-blah. Intuitively, I sense it must imply something official and solemn, but... needs disambiguation for the general public. Law texts especially need to have every word, and phrasing, clear and precise. Otherwise, the whole legal text exposes itself to being overturned. (In genuinely democratic States, anyway.) Happened recently in France with the sexual harassment law, automatically ruining dozens of direly needed court rulings. Because of one imprecise phrasing.

Bottom line: every time there's the slightest room for personal interpretation of a blur, you can be sure someone will hijack the System to abuse it. It already happens with stuff that was presumed universal, such as the Pillars. Clarity is the mother of practicality. The entire machinery is already half crippled by rule-slingers oblivious to the Mother of all Rules.

No religion or political system is so perfect it becomes invulnerable to thoughtless zealots. So let's not help them. "We demand to meet this Mr Discretionary in person!" Issar El-Aksab ( talk) 01:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Nina, if you want to propose an alternative wording, you are free to do so. Gatoclass ( talk) 15:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't be appropriate. This Wikipedia policy (if that's the correct term) on 'Discretionary sanctions' was enacted by the arbitrators in 2009, and this project page should explain at the outset why it was necessary for the arbitrators to enact the policy and what exactly (i.e. which pages currently) it applies to, and clearly define the term 'Discretionary sanctions'. The wording used by the arbitrators in enacting the policy in 2009 and defining 'Discretionary sanctions' at that time can really be the only source for the afore-mentioned explanation and definition. If the arbitrators can't clearly explain why the policy was enacted, which pages it applies to, and what the term 'Discretionary sanctions' actually means, then perhaps 'Discretionary sanctions' simply shouldn't exist. NinaGreen ( talk) 16:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A clear definition can do no harm and will make it possible for everyone to understand the concept in a similar way. Without a clear definition the concept is open to personal interpretations, and will almost certainly cause more trouble than it will solve. If it cannot be clearly defined it is useless and should be abandoned. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally, admins policing a topic area under discretionary sanctions are granted more power vis-à-vis those who police an area where DS haven't been authorised. For instance, an admin cannot usually topic ban an editor but can only impose a block; however, if discretionary sanctions have been authorised, he can. The other thing is that, usually, admin actions can be reversed by any other sysop, whereas discretionary sanctions can be lifted only by the imposing admin, by a different admin provided there is a consensus of uninvolved editors (admins, if this proposal is approved as is) or by arbcom.

In general, however, admins have a lot of latitude when it comes to DS: they can impose sanctions on an editor, article-level restrictions (such as revert restrictions) or even do something else entirely (recently, an admin removed part of an editor's comment); this flexibility is one of the reasons behind the success of DS and I don't think we should use a definition which would restrict the ability of admins to adapt their approach to the peculiarities of the case they are adjudicating. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest an alternative to policing? Perhaps supervising? The use of the term policing is commonly associatied in the public mind with flashing blue lights and screeching tires, even with guns and corpses. I do thing that any temptation to administrators should preferably be directed away from the actions of the Boys and Girls in Blue! -- Damorbel ( talk) 14:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I've started a new section to highlight a particular point, namely that a review can't take place in a vacuum. Before a process or procedure can be reviewed, the reviewers (in this case the Wikipedia community) has to be apprised of (1) the reason for enacting the process or procedure in the first place (only the arbitrators know this, and only the arbitrators can place the appropriate statement on the project page), (2) where it's taking effect (in this case a complete list of the specific Wikipedia pages to which 'Discretionary sanctions' have been applied, again something only the arbitrators are aware of), (3) statistical or anecdotal evidence which demonstrates how the process or procedure has worked in practice (have 'Discretionary sanctions' improved the problem which caused the arbitrators to enact 'Discretionary sanctions' in 2009, or have 'Discretionary sanctions' made the situation worse in identifiable ways). None of this information vital to an informed review by members of the Wikipedia community has been provided by the arbitrators, with the result that the review is taking place in a vacuum. NinaGreen ( talk) 17:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I see this NOT as a referendum of the 2009 Discretionary Sanctions, or even as a referendum at all. I see this as ARBCOM's best effort to streamline an existing practice, and asking the community for feedback on this proposed streamlining. That's not to say your words don't have merit - they do - but for the purposes of this discussion the vacuum isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

In particular, by my reading of things (which admittedly could be totally wrong):

(1) for the purposes of this discussion the reason for enacting the process or procedure in the first place isn't nearly as important as the reason things should change. Justification for change is scattered throughout the document, but it boils down to "we need to simplify things a bit."

(2) where it's taking effect (in this case a complete list of the specific Wikipedia pages to which 'Discretionary sanctions' have been applied, again something only the arbitrators are aware of) - while it's true the exact list of pages may not be easily accessible, the broad topics are accessible. If the proposed editnotices become mandatory it may become easy to generate real-time lists of pages that are covered by discretionary sanctions.

(3) is valid but the lack of this information doesn't make it impossible to come to a consensus about "which is better, the existing way or the proposed way."

Having said all of that, I do hope the arbitration committee will take your comments to heart, especially #3. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

David covers (1) nicely. (2) can be seen at WP:AC/DS. (3) is a bit more complicated unfortunately, as the historical issues are scattered throughout the history of WP:A/R/CL, WT:A/R as well as some case archives. NW ( Talk) 21:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• On (3): We aren't looking to improve the effectiveness of the process in general, and in any case it is impossible to quantify the effectiveness of the system. What we are doing is improving the wording of the discretionary sanctions general remedy, and in the process resolving a number of ambiguities and problems that have been drawn to our attention over the past year or two. I sympathise with the desire to look at the broader picture, but I think the points above reflect thinking that is a little too broad for our purposes: we aren't a political system or a think tank. Regards, AGK [•] 21:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Referendum? political system? think tank? Come on.:-) What do the arbitrators do in the world outside Wikipedia? Don't any of them have jobs in which reviews take place? A review never takes place without the information I've specified above. It can't. If Wikipedia is going to ask the community for input, it needs to supply the necessary information. Otherwise the review is just window dressing. It seems impossible to find out why the arbitrators imposed 'Discretionary sanctions' in the first place, and it seems equally impossible to find out where they've been put in place, how they're working, and how they differ from the ordinary discretion which Wikipedia administrators routinely exercise every day on topics not covered by 'Discretionary sanctions'. Is there no transparency? And if not, why not? NinaGreen ( talk) 01:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As AGK said, this discussion is not intended as a full review of the DS process - we are merely attempting to tighten up the existing wording in order to remove some ambiguities for the benefit of participants and in particular, for the admins who actually use the process. Certainly, the question of "how [the process] is working" is well beyond the scope of this discussion. With regard to your other comments, you probably make a worthwhile point that the DS page could use a brief introduction outlining the reasons the sanctions were introduced and how they differ from standard sanctions. The page could probably also add a link somewhere to the list of topic areas covered, though again this is not actually critical to the purpose of this page. However, this discussion is already getting a bit long and messy, so it might be best to leave these less important issues until after we have resolved some of the more important ones. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• @ NinaGreen Thanks for your questions. The background and so forth is as follows:
  1. The committee handles problems that are too widespread, too entrenched, or too complicated, for the community to handle effectively itself. Discretionary sanctions evolved as a means of dealing with on-going problems within a topic arising after a case has closed. Their purpose is to nip such problems in the bud, with a minimum of bureaucracy and disruption.
  2. The difference between discretionary sanctions and community sanctions is merely who authorised them. Discretionary sanctions tend to be applied to divisive disputes which the community has tried and failed to resolve.
  3. Discretionary sanctions evolved from "article probation", which authorised admins to issue topic-bans within problematic topics. Article probation has been used since 2006 (early examples: Case:Shiloh, Case:Election) and perhaps before then.
  4. They were consolidated in 2009 into a single process for consistency, and comprehensive appeal routes were added for fairness.
  5. Discretionary sanctions (and before that, article probation) are authorised for a topic in an entirely transparent on-wiki process, as part of a case decision or, very occasionally, by public motion.
  6. The affected topics are listed on the DS main page. Logs of people sanctioned within each topic can be found on the applicable case page. You can't get much more transparent than that.
  7. The process of applying DS usually takes place in public at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Again, you can't get much more transparent than that.
  For the purpose for which they are intended, there is not much doubt that DS are effective.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just seen DS applied to an individual, who was subsequently indefinitely block. I believe there were a number of issues which seemed to contradict the current process, and consequently need clarifying.

1. I see the list of Affected areas. How do I know whether a page relating to a subject is included? ANI states "broadly construed"? By whom, how? Will there be banner/message on such pages (article and/or talk page)? "Abortion" is mentioned. Is Fertilisation related, it mentions abortion? What about a politician where we use a reference written by someone who publicly supports/renounced abortion? There ought to be some more specific guidance.
2. What's the timeline from placing alerts to sanctioning an editor? Can I take the case to WP:AR, provide some evidence, have the user banned, then retrospectively alert them?
3. WP:AC/DS suggests that after a warning, there should be repeated offences. One? More? Any offence (mild incivility?) Does this include offences before the warning? What about offences not related to the article
4. WP:AC/DS suggests that the editor in question "should be counselled". Must be? Doesn't have to be? What does this involve, a one-sentence chastisement, or a concerted effort to improve the editor's behavior?
5. Can you alert an editor that DS are in place, for any reason? Is it ever inappropriate to do so?
6. Do Affect Areas refer only to articles, or do they also include content that maybe included in a non-contentious article?
7. Is an editor's behavior outside an affect area, admissible? ie. I tells someone that "abortion" is under DS, and they are uncivil on my talk page?
8. WP:AC/DS The "Authorisation" section notes that "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions [..] despite being warned". Is the uninvolved administrator also responsible for the earlier warnings?
9. WP:AC/DS The "Sanctions" section notes "the contents of this page and other relevant sources constitute authoritative guidance to administrators", which would suggest that it is the uninvolved admin that is responsible for most aspects of the process, rather than any involved editor?
10. WP:AC/DS suggests "sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length". A recent case just blocked an editor indefinitely, is that proper?
11. WP:AC/DS if an involved admin blocks an editor for a year, presumable it will automatically expire after this time, and there is no need for an appeal?
12. WP:AC/DS What's the guidance for the duration of the ban? Shouldn't there be some kind of justification? Shouldn't an editor's previous conduct count?
13. Does an editor have a right to contribute to the WP:AR?
14. Does an involved editor have the right to be incivil, or attack the editor in question?

I would like to see a timeline of the proceedure, and have this reflected as a checklist if bought to WP:AR. For example:

1. Link/Diff showing article is an "affect area"
2. Diff showing editor has been alerted to affected area (with date)
3. Diff showing editor has received construcive help to improve (with date)
4. Discussion showing editor has subsequently repeatedly edited the article improperly, together with (a) diffs (b) policy contravention link (c) dates

-- Iantresman ( talk) 15:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If this is about Tumbleman, it is not a DS issue. He was blocked as an ordinary admin action. The blocking admin has clarified this.   Roger Davies ^talk 17:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, a bit confusing as the case was brought specifically as a Discretion Sanctions case, everyone involved considered it a DS case, and it even confused the closing admin who initially treated it as a DS case.

I'd still be interested in the answers to my questions, which I think would still benefit from some clarification. -- Iantresman ( talk) 19:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Roger Davies for the clarification above. I've started a new section to highlight what appears to be happening on the ground, which is this. An individual editor's case, handled by unelected administrators, goes through a series of progressive steps to arbitration, and the elected (I stress that word) arbitrators hand out a heavy penalty to that individual editor, which is the sole purpose for which the arbitrators were elected, i.e. to hand out heavy penalties when it's deemed necessary after an arbitration hearing. In certain cases, the arbitrators then, in addition to heavily penalizing the editor in question, impose 'Discretionary sanctions' on a topic area (usually 'broadly defined', and thus not defined at all) by which they delegate to unelected administrators (who are otherwise bound to take the aforementioned series of progressive steps) the power to now put on a different hat and act as though they were elected arbitrators, and impose heavy penalties on any other editor who happens to edit in that topic area. The logic of this escapes me. If editor X's behaviour was such that his case went to arbitration, and was dealt with by the elected arbitrators, why should editor Y be deprived of the due process (i.e. the series of progressive steps which can ultimately lead to arbitration) simply because editor Y chooses to edit on a particular topic? And the ultimate question, it seems to me, is how the arbitrators can delegate to unelected administrators the very power the arbitrators were elected to exercise? NinaGreen ( talk) 17:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the short answer is that admins are !elected and they block hundreds of people every day with very little process. Once the core issues of an acrimonious dispute are identified in a case, few situations arising from it need the degree of scrutiny a full case provides. In these circumstances, it is in everyone's best interests to have administrators act expeditiously.   Roger Davies ^talk 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

"administrators act expeditiously" - if only. I'm in a situation now where three extraordinarily biased editors working as defacto (and possibly actual) meatpuppets have been trashing a set of articles. Complaints have been lodged by several editors at multiple noticeboards and WP:ANI multiple times. Admins do nothing. And now people are talking about taking the whole subject area to arbitration! Why do we even have an NPOV policy if admins can't even comment on obvious POV editing and only on behavior issues, which the offending editors always wiggle out of by making false and exaggerated claims against the complainants? I have a feeling ArbCom would not take this case and the problems would go on and on. I would be delighted if the whole area was put under 1RR, but Admins dealing with disruptive editors would save a lot of time and energy. And maybe bring back the 5 or 6 editors who've gotten fed up with Wikipedia because of it. User:Carolmooredc 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again to Roger Davies for the reply, and for correcting my error (I wasn't aware that administrators were elected). But surely the power of administrators to hand out penalties ('sanctions' is a bit of a euphemism) shouldn't be equal to that of arbitrators. Surely the power to hand out heavy penalties should be reserved to arbitrators. So I think my point is still valid, i.e. by imposing 'Discretionary sanctions' on a 'broadly defined' (and thus undefined) topic area, the arbitrators are delegating the power to hand out heavy penalties to administrators without specifying on this project page the fact that they've done so. The project page contains nothing regarding the limits of the penalties which administrators can impose.

I think my second point is still valid as well. The logic continues to escape me as to how 'Identifying the core issues of an acrimonious dispute' in an arbitration involving editor X (and heavily penalizing editor X for his conduct) has anything to do with editor Y. Isn't the 'core issue' of all the 'acrimonious disputes' for which 'Discretionary sanctions' have been imposed just POV pushing, i.e. one group of editors sees the abortion issue, for example, one way, and another group of editors sees it another way? It doesn't take an arbitration to identify that. So the rationale that 'identifying the core issues in an arbitration' gives administrators guidelines for the exercise of their discretion in handing out future penalties to editors who choose to edit on that topic doesn't hold up. Administrators have no more guidelines than they had before the arbitration. They just have authority to crack the whip and hand out heavier penalties.

I appreciate the fact that there is conflict on Wikipedia which needs to be managed. But delegating the powers of arbitrators to administrators doesn't seem to be the best way of effectively managing that conflict. There should be a clearly defined limit to the penalties administrators can hand out, no matter what the topic, and if there are going to be two different sets of limits given to an identical administrator, depending on whether he's handing out penalties on a topic on which 'Discretionary sanctions' have been imposed or on a topic on which 'Discretionary sanctions' have not been imposed, then the two different sets of limits need to be clearly spelled out as well.

I also want to reiterate the point that Wikipedia editors need to have easy access to all this information. Even if there hadn't been this review, a clear explanation of the arbitrators' reason for bringing in this new concept of 'Discretionary sanctions' should have been on the project page from the outset, as should a complete and up-to-date list of the topics on which 'Discretionary sanctions' have been imposed, and a definition of the limits of the power of administrators using 'Discretionary sanctions' which clearly differentiates it from the exercise of their usual powers. What I said earlier about an informed review not being possible without that information holds true. In the world outside Wikipedia, no review occurs without that information already in place. This review has merely uncovered something important which was missing from the project page, and hopefully the arbitrators will speedily rectify that omission. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Carolmooredc here, we wouldn't need DS if admins acted fairly towards all editors. If I act uncivily, as an unfavoured editor, I can be pretty certain of a block "expeditiously". On the other hand, editors I come into disagreement, are regularly uncivil toward me. I've had my competence questioned, threatened with Discretion Sanctions, reminded about my previous bans, and been called a liar. I've seen Admins also call an editor's competence into question, and also had an Arbitrator condone a personal attack against me. But this is probably not the place for this discussion. -- Iantresman ( talk) 19:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am, of course, ' topic banned. This ban took place after an intervention [20] on WP:AN . The admin. responsible ( User:Qwyrxian) being kind enough to inform me :- And just to address one criticism I assume you will level, as you mentioned it at AN, the whole point of me closing this and issuing the ban is that I have not investigated the matter in great detail. The origin of the ban seems to be my assesment that the Wiki articles on thermal physics (e.g. Heat, Temperature, Thermal energy etc. These articles are terrible! They contain a great many deficiencies among which mind boggling verbosity is not the least, Wiki articles are supposted to explain, aren't they? These article should be scrapped and replaced with some that take in to account that Wiki users should not have to plough through so much verbal garbage. The reason why Wikipedia is becoming a mere blog is that it is organised with special interest groups such as WP:PROJ which, as in the case of thermal physics is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics have shortcomings. I have argued the matter extensively in the relevant talk pages. (The link to the relevant WP:AN, the one that doesn't work, would show the kind of personal abuse, now found in wikipedia, characteristic of certain blogs. How sad!) As it says in the heading of Temperature(talk):- This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. The collaborative effort referred to sounds desirable but it is in this case an open invitation to mobbing. I am banned by an admin. who freely admits that he (she) has :- not investigated the matter in great detail This is crazy! It is intellectual freefall! If Wiki needs editors this is not the way to encourage them.-- Damorbel ( talk) 09:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC) This was a community topic ban and outside the scope of this discussion. For what it's worth, and to be fair to the closing admin who you have quoted out of context, he made it abundantly clear that he was merely the instrument of a community decision.   Roger Davies talk 09:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC) I will clarify one last time. I did not topic ban you. The community topic banned you. All I did was check to see if there was a clear consensus to topic ban you, make sure the process was fair, that it was supported by evidence, and that there was sufficient discussion that was policy compliant. All of that was the case. Really, all I did was inform you that the community had come to a consensus that you should be topic banned. This is, in fact, basically the opposite of discretionary sanctions, under which any admin can act alone on any article Arbcom has designated as being under DS. So no matter how this proposal turns out, it would have had no effect on your banning. What affected that was your long term behavior on a series of articles and their talk pages. And none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the quality of Wikipedia articles. Qwyrxian ( talk) 11:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Um, Qwyrxian, it is you who took a decision based on "long term behavior on a series of articles and their talk pages" and you had " not investigated the matter in great detail " to close the WP:AN discussion. Who is kidding who? This is makes the whole thing worse! It really is the intellectual pits. What do you mean The Community? Only some of the people contributing to the relevant WP:AN discussion were actual editors in thermal physics and among those were some who have, by incompetent editing, reduced the various articles to the inconsistent garbage they are at present. I did have a few successes; the definition of temperature now admits that it is an intensive property of a thermal system. I had a hard job getting it accepted against some bitter resentment from the community. It took guts and persistance on my part to get this change accepetd by the so called community, it is good that you are able to close the discussion so that I am not able to make more contributions. Even now the presence of the term intensive ( Temperature an intensive variable) has been reduced to garbage by your "Community" where it now says :- because it is equal to a differential coefficient of one extensive variable with respect to another, clearly rubbish because the measure of temperature is the linear kinetic energy of each of one or more particles, when the multiple particles are in thermal equilibrium, i.e. it is mathematically impossible to diferentiate WRT spatial distribution the energy of a single particle. Do you understand this? In connection with matters concerning your decision to close the discussion on 'Topic banning' me, I would prefer that you confine your comments to matters where you are competent; I doubt very much that you took your decision, as you claim, based on "long term behavior on a series of articles and their talk pages" and thus you were quite unable to decide when to close the discussion in a logical way. -- Damorbel ( talk) 13:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The list of DS main page|Affected areas already contains 27 topics. Considering that 'Discretionary sanctions' are defined as 'affected areas' and are said to be 'broadly construed', it's anyone's guess which specific Wikipedia pages or how many Wikipedia pages in total that covers. It could be hundreds. The rationale given above is that the problems in these 27 affected areas have become too intractable for the community to handle on its own. However the solution which has been adopted is for the arbitrators to give the so-called intractable problem which the community allegedly can't handle right back to the community to handle under 'Discretionary sanctions', the only difference being that administrators now have greater power to crack the whip and hand out stiffer penalties, which presumably the administrators could have done without the imposition of 'Discretionary sanctions' since there are no defined limits to their power anyway. So what has actually been gained by the imposition of 'Discretionary sanctions'?

The whole situation is extremely muddy, particularly in the total absence of either statistical or anecdotal information as to how 'Discretionary sanctions' are actually working out in practice. It's not sufficient to state that they're there's no doubt that they're effective. How do members of the Wikipedia community who have been invited to comment for purposes of this review know that? Do we just take the arbitrators' word for it? How can members of the Wikipedia community suggest improvements to the process when they lack statistical or anecdotal information as to how the process is actually working?

These aren't just theoretical points. There's a real danger of 'Discretionary sanction' creep here. If more clarity isn't provided on this project page as a result of this review, who knows how many more topic areas might be on the 'Affected areas' list a few years from now. The criterion by which arbitrators decide whether to impose 'Discretionary sanctions' needs to be clearly spelled out on the project page. The criterion can't be that the problems are too intractable for the community to handle on its own, because the arbitrators are going to give the problem right back to the community to handle on its own through 'Discretionary sanctions', which consist of nothing more than allegedly giving administrators power to hand out stiffer penalties, which in itself doesn't make sense when the limits of administrators' power are not defined anywhere in the first place. NinaGreen ( talk) 17:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"which presumably the administrators could have done without the imposition of 'Discretionary sanctions' since there are no defined limits to their power anyway" – this is not correct. AGK [•] 22:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

But you see, if this project page had from the outset had a section on it which explained the difference between the discretion administrators can routinely exercise on topics not covered by 'Discretionary sanctions' and the discretion they can exercise on topics on which 'Discretionary sanctions' have been imposed, I wouldn't have made that mistake, would I? It would have been right there in front of me on the project page. That's been one of my principal points in this discussion -- the arbitrators have never defined that crucial difference on this project page. Why don't they just do it, rather than quibbling about it? NinaGreen ( talk) 01:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)