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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nutshell and preamble (comments)

Draft text

• Changed the "nutshell" text to use that suggested by Bluerasberry, which is an improvement. Thanks,   Roger Davies ^talk 22:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I would change "imposing temporary, special rules to administrators to resolve" to "creating temporary, special rules for administrators to resolve" for syntactical reasons (changes bolded).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree.  Done   Roger Davies ^talk 07:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

First sentence should read: "Discretionary sanctions are extraordinary measures for dealing with disruptive conduct within certain areas of conflict." The areas are not specified in this policy, even if the method of identifying them is. Fast-track incorrectly implies speed and haste when using discretionary sanctions, which is not always true, and is not always faster than an admin blocking under normal circumstances in an area of conflict. Additionally, "fast track" implies that normal blocks have due proccess, and they do not. "Contentious or disruptive" is a list, and lists imply that they are exclusive. Discretionary sanctions are plural - they are sanctions devised and layed down by administrators, as in "Administrators may issue discretionary sanctions."

Second sentence should read: "Discretionary sanctions are issued by administrators after Arbitration Committee identifies a specific area of conflict and authorizes the use of discretionary sanctions in order to resolve disruption and promote civil participation. Alternative: From time to time the Arbitration Committee authorizes administrators to apply discretionary sanctions on a limited basis. The goal of discretionary sanctions is to end disruptive conduct and promote civil participation to improve Wikipedia.-- Tznkai ( talk) 01:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence DS are temporary -- as far as I know, there's no expiration date set when they're authorized as part of a case. Have there been cases of them being removed after being in place awhile? NE Ent 15:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any situations where Sanctions as a whole had an expiration date, but I've definitely seen specific sanctions that would be set to expire after a period of time. For example, "This article is under 0RR for 1 week," or something like that. -- El on ka 15:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This is why I prefer "limited". The Committee has absolute authority to limit how discretionary sanctions can be issued, and some of those limitations are standardized in this policy.-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@ tznkai I've tweaked your text a bit and come up with {{nutshell| Discretionary sanctions are extraordinary measures for dealing with disruptive conduct within certain areas of conflict. Discretionary sanctions are imposed by administrators after the Arbitration Committee has identified specific topics as areas of conflict and has authorised the use of discretionary sanctions to resolve disruption and promote civil participation within the specified topics.}} This seems to cover it,   Roger Davies ^talk 14:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• "...temporary..."? This strikes me as similar to "limited" terms of Perpetual_copyright#United_States (sense two). I know that British Baronets were once under AC/DS, and aren't any longer. But I thought that was the exception, not the rule. And yes, I realize that the sanctions are reviewed from time to time, and the language tweaked from time to time. But are topics that once happen to come under some flavor of discretionary sanctions, 90% of them, *still* under some form of AC/DS, indefinitely? I would guess yes, but I'd like to have some stats (or at least some anecdotes). If the AC/DS regime is effectively permanent, the nutshell should just say so. Peace in the Middle East is a redlink for a good reason. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 17:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think the word 'temporary' is there to make DS 'not permanent', and therefore to allow us to withdraw it from any topic area at any time. Granted, it's best read as 'temporary but indefinite', but that's a different question. AGK [•] 22:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough, thanks. Suggest "... temporary..." which conveys the sense via the wikilink, and thus avoids bloating the prose. Or, temporary. HTH. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 14:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitions (comments)

Draft text

• The "administrator" and "enforcing administrator" paragraphs have been tweaked and merged. The requirement about having access to the tools has (hopefully) been clarified.   Roger Davies ^talk
• There's new definition of "sanction".   Roger Davies ^talk 22:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a minor point and may just take up room for no helpful reason, but I can an argument (wikilawyering) about exactly what defines "editor", for example is it an IP and/or account without extra permissions (ie I'm a rollbacker not an editor). So could the first use of "editor" be linked to Wikipedia:Editor or (for stability) be defined as anyone and everyone who edits. It's a minor point and probably not required but may help avoid confusion and wikilawyering down the track. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Brief definition added,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
    • And, on second thoughts, added "and everyone",   Roger Davies ^talk 14:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

First bullet point should read "The Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (AE) is the noticeboard designated by the Arbitration Committee for requesting, applying, discussing and appealing enforcement requests, currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. "discussing" should be included, since adminstrators should be encouraged to discuss the sanctions.

Second bullet point should read "An area of conflict is a set of topics specified by the Arbitration Committee when authorizing discretionary sanctions." There are many areas of conflict, set includes one.

Fifth bullet point should read "An enforcing administrator is any administrator who imposes a discretionary sanction." Don't lay down requirements for administrators in general definitions, do it in the section specific to them. Moreover, you want it clear that all administrators are bound by the policy. By using "discretionary sanctions" the way we have, we've turned them into a term of art, so they are no longer just sanctions done under these procedures. Only sanctions done under these procedures are correct.-- Tznkai ( talk) 01:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC) @ Tznkai I've made some changes reflecting some of these comments.   Roger Davies ^talk 14:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• area of conflict I'm not clear what this refers to. Is it:

1. The specified list of articles listed at WP:AC/DS#Affected_areas ?
2. The "Affected areas" mentions "Pages relating to...". Other sanctions mentions "interpreted broadly". What do these mean?

• Another article is related somehow?
• A paragraph is related, in an article that isn't related?
• A citation is related in an sentence that isn't related?

I think there needs to be some indication of scope, as this will differ in understanding between editors. -- Iantresman ( talk) 10:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Authorisation (comments)

Draft text

• NE Ent I've knocked out "full" in "full force" in the two places where it appears.

  I'll post a motion to tidy up the Senkaku Islands anomaly.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I would change "as an Arbitration Committee motion" to "as a Committee motion" as Committee is a defined term.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done   Roger Davies ^talk 12:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thx NE Ent 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Behavioural expectations (comments)

Draft text

• Applied Hgilbert's very good suggestion.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There should be a semi-colon instead of a comma after "best practice" in #3.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
    •  Fixed. Thanks Bbb23! AGK [•] 23:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Is it possible to "comply" with all guidelines, isn't a guideline only a guide, rather than a policy?
• What happens when policies conflict? Who decides? -- Iantresman ( talk) 16:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Does "editing" refer to only the article, or can it technically refer to the edits made on a talk page while discussing the article? -- Iantresman ( talk) 23:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've vaped "and guidelines" as these are to all practical purposes covered by the best practices subsequently referred to. In any case, guidelines are never mandatory and sometimes contradictory.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And does it apply to only the editing of an article, or does it also apply to discussion on its talk page? -- Iantresman ( talk) 11:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that the area of conflict is defined as "the topic or group of topics specified" my understanding is that it could include any page not just articles and talk pages but a template or a page in the Wikipedia namespace as well. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In which case, presumably different behavior problems would apply. I've not heard of anyone being sanctioned for 3RR on a talk page? -- Iantresman ( talk) 12:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Along with "page restrictions" it should also mention "interaction bans" or perhaps instead of "page restrictions" just say "restrictions". -- El on ka 15:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• "2. comply with all applicable policies; and 3. follow editorial and behavioural best practice"—3 seems to be unacceptably vague. What is this best practice beyond what is set out in policies? And if this was the replacement for the previous explicit mention of "guidelines", it's still too vague, allowing any teenage admin with a private agenda to define "best practice". Tony (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"applicable policies" since we're not including "guidelines" and presumably "essays", what happens when editors claim, for example:

1. "POV pushing" -- there is no such policy, guideline or essay.
2. " WP:LAWYERING" -- Another essay, does this really counts for nothing?
3. " WP:CONSENSUS" -- a policy, but I've seen editors claim that "has not reached consensus" to mean "against consensus". How do we demonstrate one or the other? -- Iantresman ( talk) 10:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

All covered by "best practice",   Roger Davies ^talk 14:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors editing within the area of conflict are expected to:

1. adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia; and
2. comply with all applicable policies; and
3. follow editorial and behavioural best practice; and
4. comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict.

Failure to meet any behavioural expectation may result in sanctions.

i) Why all the "and"s?

ii) What is the point of this section because as far as I can tell what it states (other than point 4) is true for all articles. Are the authors of this draft really saying that an administrator is going to treat an uncivil foul mouthed editor with a large support base of acolytes any differently than they are treated when making comments on other pages? If not then the decision by an administrator whether to sanction someone involves exactly the same ANI political considerations as those for ever other page, so why include points one to three in this draft?

How does an casual editor with a little knowledge of the topic decides whether a specific page is under arbcom sanctions when many arbcom sanctions state "Articles which relate to {topic}, broadly interpreted"? For example is Warsaw a central European city or an East European City? How about Berlin or Vienna? Is the Berlin Philharmonic and the Vienna Boys' Choir articles under [Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions|Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions]] or are such topics about Central European issue and outside the scope of the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions?

iii) I do not think that an uniformed editor can possibly be expected to know the scope of the articles under wording such as "Articles which relate to {topic}, broadly interpreted". Because of this point four is so loosely defined as to be uninformative for any arbcom sanctions that include the sentence "Articles which relate to {topic}, broadly interpreted".

iv) "Failure to meet any behavioural expectation may result in sanctions." Why only may result in sanction? Why not "will result"? Or is sending the signal that if you have a bigger enough support within the community base you will not.

-- PBS ( talk) 19:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If the above warning is going to be used then the Arbcom needs to include a link to the Arbcom case that implemented the sanction in that article. At minimum it should include a link to a summary of the sanction so the editor doesn't have to wade through a massive arbitration. Kumioko ( talk) 14:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What "above warning"? -- PBS ( talk) 12:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The comment in the Quotation box. Alert, comment or whatever you want to call it. Unless I am completely missing the intent of the message the intention is to notify the editors of a sanction on an article or topic. My point was that its a big place and we have a lot of articles with a lot of sanctions in place. We need to include a link to the sanction in question. Kumioko ( talk) 15:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Alerts (comments)

Draft text

• The thrust seems to be that
  1. calling these "Alerts" is fine;
  2. sanctioning on the basis of edit notices alone is a bad idea.
  The text has been tweaked accordingly.   Roger Davies ^talk 22:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • What's the purpose of provision 3? If an uninvolved editor provides a third-party opinion at AE thread, that makes the uninvolved editor automatically subject to AE sanctions? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    • The idea behind alerts is that, in order for an editor to be restricted, he must have been aware that the area he was editing in was under discretionary sanctions, to avoid unpleasant surprises and to make sure that users know what the consequences of their actions may be.

      For that reason, it's superfluous to inform someone who is already aware that a given topic area is under DS (among the reasons an editor may already be aware is the fact that he has issued an alert to someone else or has participated in an AE thread about that very same area, because, by doing so, he is implicitly acknowledging the existence of discretionary sanctions).

      Demanding that a disruptive editor be issued an alert in every case is overly bureaucratic and, as I said, superfluous. That said, however, instead of the current provision, I'd prefer something more general along the lines of "the editor in question has, through his actions, demonstrated that he is already aware that the topic area he is editing in is under discretionary sanctions", which includes other cases which may arise that we didn't foresee. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

      • • • I've added Salvio's suggestion, slightly tweaked.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not asking about disruptive editors. I'm asking about uninvolved editors who just happen to provide a comment in an AE thread. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The only requirement for imposing a discretionary sanction is proof that the user is already aware of the existence of those sanctions in relation to the given topic area, so yes, an uninvolved editor would become subject to such sanctions from commenting on a related AE request, there is no reason to distinguish between involved and uninvolved editors in such a circumstance. Note however that an uninvolved editor has nothing to fear if he remains uninvolved - only if he later becomes involved in disputes in the topic area can he potentially be sanctioned, because by doing so he has already lost his uninvolved status. So I don't see how this provision can be regarded as discriminatory against uninvolved users in any way. I am inclined to agree with Salvio however that a more general wording such as that he proposes would be preferable, otherwise there is the possibility that users who are clearly aware of the existence of sanctions could potentially escape sanction on a technicality. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia values the viewpoints of uninvolved editors because they have no vested interest in the outcome and presumably can provide object, neural input. However, if this change were to pass, uninvolved editors will be discouraged from offering their opinions because it makes them subject to sanctions without warning. Consider, for example, well...me. I, to the best of my recollection, have never been the subject of a AE request. But I do sometimes comment on requests that I am completely uninvolved with. Now, I've been on Wikipedia for roughly 4-5 years. Let's say that I made a comment regarding an AE thread 5 years ago and have long since forgot the details. Let's also say that I accidentally violate a 1RR restriction without even realizing it. Under the current rules, I'm allowed an honest mistake. However, if these new rules are applied, I can be sanctioned on a first offense without even realizing it. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the same if rather than commenting you were warned with {{ uw-sanctions}} 5 years ago, which you very easily could have forgotten about. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you could be sanctioned in such circumstances Quest, but in the unlikely event that you were, it would almost certainly be overturned on appeal. I'm not at all persuaded that this clause poses a threat of any significance to uninvolved users. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Two suggestions to include in the list
  1. Include in #3, participated in an AE appeal discussion on AN since appeals can take place there as well.
  2. Add has notified another editor that discretionary sanctions are in operation for the area of conflict. This is to avoid wikilawyering behaviour if, in a dispute for example, one party notifies the others about DS but not (obviously) themselves. Under the current wording this allows everyone but them to be sanctioned with a DS.
  Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Callanecc I've incorporated these points,   Roger Davies ^talk 07:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• The Alert (or other sufficient antecedent) should occur before the misbehavior which may lead to a sanction. It doesn't actually say that at the moment, leaving open the possibility of misbehavior-alert-sanction in that order. I don't think that is intended. Zero ^talk 03:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed, the provision should read: "... unless that editor has previously: been notified (...), been mentioned (...), participated (...)".  Sandstein  17:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is the best spot for me to bring up a late-in-the-game question about alerts. There seems to be some disagreement among administrators and editors whether there has to be misconduct before an alert is issued. I have always thought that misconduct was not required, that the alert was just a notification to an editor who is editing in the topic area that he or she should be aware of the possibility of sanctions. Yet, WP:AC/DS itself says: "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways" and "Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process". Not only do these sentences indicate there has to be misconduct, but they also impose a requirement on the issuer to explain what the misconduct is, etc. And assuming there has to be "misconduct", how bad does it have to be? Enough to rise to the level of sanctions if an alert was previously issued, or just conduct that could be "better"? Finally, whatever the resolution of these questions, we should keep our nomenclature consistent. We should change the word "warning(s)" to "alert(s)".-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Bbb23 alerted me that he had commented here. I agree that notices should not have misconduct as a prerequisite. The language of {{ ArbCom-Alert}} seems to be trying to be non-accusatory and I do approve of that idea. Taking a look at what's in WP:AC/DS at the moment, it is full of the 'warning' terminology. If the draft we are discussing here is going to replace WP:AC/DS than all is good, because I think it fixes the problem. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it will replace the existing DS procedure.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. One thing that would help me would be to see a draft of the entire page itself rather than broken up into sections as it is here. In that way, I wouldn't have to piece together the fragments (perhaps it's just me as I'm more tired than usual). For example, in the lead of the current page there is the large box with all the bullets. I assume that box is going away completely.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on a comment on another page, it seems like we can blame this whole situation on a lawyer drawing from the legal concept of notice: actual and constructive. It might be easier to replace this whole section with "No sanction may be imposed on an editor unless that editor has been made aware that discretionary sanctions are in operation for the area of conflict or have demonstrated they are aware of of the sanctions.-- Tznkai ( talk) 22:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Minor FYI, The draft is missing a "discuss section" under the Alerts section. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Please provide example of #4; In legalistic technical writing, my dubious meter usually pegs at every occurrence of the word "clearly", since arguing parties so clearly reach the opposite conclusion. Based on what I know now, a "clear" invocation of #4 would involve such eggregious conduct that any one of the other control mechanisms would probably have been pulled before we need to invoke #4, and if so, that would leave #4 at play only for the "unclear" claims, i.e., the playground of battle attitudes. So from where I sit with what I know right now, we'd be better of deleting #4. Wouldn't we? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Probably need an or at the end of item 3. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• In terms of the phrasing of item 3: "participated in any appeal discussion about the same area of conflict;". Is it intended then that the word appeal means any discussion requesting sanction OR does it just mean appeals of sanctions? This is unclear and needs clarification either way. As far as I'm concerned participating at WP:AE should be a clear indication that the user knows about (i.e is alerted to) the ArbCom ruling-- Cailil ^talk 14:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I know I'm replying to myself but perhaps "participated in any appeal or enforcement discussion" would be better. I know there are bigger issues here but there is genuine loophole here that will be exploited unless closed-- Cailil ^talk 12:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Alerts: Radical counterproposal

• Convert the alert/warning/logging/whatever into a new "probationary" status for affected subject areas;
• Initial incident in these areas is filed at ANI just like any other subject area
• Probation can be imposed for cause at ANI, and appealed at ANI, just like any other ANI decision (one process makes it easy)
• Probation is logged in the ARBCOM rulings
• DS only applies to eds who are on probation in that subject area

PROS of this approach... removes all confusion "why did you template me" and innocent people being pissed off "I didn't do anything, get me off that log!" It uses existing procedures to establish the initial problematic behavior, instead of inventing some new and more subjective-status/subjective-procedure prior to more severe sanctioning. Anything else?

CONS of this approach... I can't think of any, can you? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the big con is you're dragging everyone to ANI. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Everyone" is a bit excessive, no? Today we lose editors to bullies who abuse the template/notice process but there isn't a good way to reign in those bullies. Will the gentler-kinder-just-as-ill-defined "alert" system change that? I think it will just change the nature of protests, as innocents continue to be put into DS minefields. By going to ANI we make people have the goods; If eds bring specious claims then they are eds who are likely problems in that subject area and when they get boomeranged by being put on probation that helps the subject area. On the other hand, if they have valid complaints, the offending party can hardly complain about being placed on probation. There is a built in appeal process for good faith editors who feel betrayed or wrongly accused. Compare

• "bring a few people when there are problems to ANI and place some of them on DS probation" to
• "let us put some but not all subject area eds, some of whom have transgressed and some who simply stopped by in good faith, in a subject area minefield and deny them a means to appeal their placement in that minefield"

The second option is a sure way to reduce editor retention, and my alternative idea only takes a few rotten apples to ANI, not "everyone" NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk)

I'm sorry. To clarify by everyone I meant "everyone that is currently affected by the alert/logging system." Maybe some other noticeboard, but I'm just concerned ANI would turn the whole process into a sideshow. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if I over-reacted. Clarify My proposal involves only a small percentage of the people now affected by the alert system - that subgroup that initially make trouble. It largely leaves well-intended/get-along type people alone - 100% of whom under the alert system can never know when they will get logged and then exposed to DS out of a nearly blue sky. That means more people can edit in contentious areas and still have fun. So we make a new ANI noticeboard for probation requests. How hard can it be? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My experience is that that the unlikeliest people have bees in their bonnets on certain topics. So how do you triage the innocent and the trublemakers?   Roger Davies ^talk 20:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Option A, lump them all together if they edit subject area "X"; Option B, let the troublemakers in that subject area deal with the results of their choices as identified via existing procedures, trusting other eds in those ares to pull the levers on those existing procedures. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not very clear to me. The obvious troublemakers are already dealt with, very quickly and efficiently. But how would any of this avoid the problems with, say, the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, which collapsed under the weight of the deadlocking? And what about the people whose feathers are ruffled simply by being dragged to ANI and having allegations made about them?   Roger Davies ^talk 21:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll try again. If notice and logging is perfunctory, just from visiting an affected subject area, there will be hit-and-miss notice and logging. Some troublemakers will experience that others won't. Some innocents will be noticed/logged, and others won't. This observation ties in with the "alerts" and "issuing alerts" comments above. If there is inconsistency, then some nice people are going to experience "un-fun" and go away. Worse, some innocents who were perfunctorily noticed and logged have to now quake in their boots as they attempt to edit a contentious area because OMG they're exposed to possible DS sanctions out of the blue from an admin having a bad day. That is not a good way to try to do that triage, and it is what I meant by lumping everyone together just because they edited subject area "X". (Actually its worse if some get alerted/logged and some don't.) As for people being ruffled at ANI, (A) if they're exonerated they need to get over it because that's an essential qualification to participate in consensus process and (B) they are the type whose feathers are going to be ruffled by being alerted/logged/sanctioned-out-of-the-blue, so we haven't really avoided those ruffled feathers either way. As to your question on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, I was unaware of that history, never having been there, so I don't know. Maybe that information defeats my idea, but I can't speak to it, presently. Anyway, thanks for your followup questions and bumping this out. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If someone is going to quake in their boots at a non-accusatory alert, what are they doing in the rough and tumble of a wiki? If they think they are beyond reproach, what are they doing in one of the most critical environments on earth? Moreover, with 6818123 articles to choose from, why do they need to edit the tiny handful under DS? And what, I wonder, makes you think that editing warzone articles can ever be a fun experience?   Roger Davies ^talk 21:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the quaking is at the prospect of what comes next, after alert/logging. As for "fun", it is my guess your newbie days are so far behind you that this question is better answered by listening to new editors, and asking them what they're passionate enough to try to edit? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd much rather have a log entry than be dragged to ANI. I feel like I"m missing the crux of your argument. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In this concept, the ANI closing admin will, at a minimum, log a first-time offender in one of these contentious subjects as being on "DS probation". (Same as logging a "notification" in the old system or "alert" in the new proposal.) Any ed who is placed on DS Probation is then eligible for the imposition of DS if they commit a second offense in an area covered by an ARB ruling. People might still be embarrassed by a DS probation notice. I suppose they could have built in expiration times to address that. That way accidental slips can be purged from ones "record" and reformed eds can be fully redeemed with just the passage of time and good behavior. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And this incredibly time-consuming, resource-hogging, process is intended to stop what prccisely?   Roger Davies ^talk 00:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm first to admit I don't have the experience to project how this would work in practice, but on paper, it strikes me as a sensible answer to the comments I made in the ALERT and ISSUING ALERT threads above. Especially this one. Your mileage may vary. I think we can say Roger doesn't like it! (humor) NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether I like it or not; I'm still thinking it through. However, my immediate reaction is that your proposal creates greater disruption to the encyclopedia than the problem it seeks to fix.

To explain, DS applies to our most entrenched disputes. In the bigger ones, there are literally dozens of editors on either side of the dispute, looking to settle scores than can go back years. Even relatively in small disputes, the disputants can easily dominate any community discussion. The discussions become interminable and it becomes difficult to close them. Admins whose decisions don't suit one side or the other are hounded; their closing decisions are used as "proof" of bias where in reality none exists. ANI also has a systemic problem. While it is good at handling black and white issues; it is not so good at handling shades of grey. It either ends up deadlocked or rushing to judgment, neither of which are good.

So all in all, while the thrust is probably unworkable, there are things here I agree with. For instance, I do think that notifications should expire with the passage of time.   Roger Davies ^talk 16:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for thoughtful elaboration. If notifications can expire, that means they are not perfunctory just for making a single edit; rather notice would have to require "something more". What would that be? Does the "something more" requirement imply these aren't really simple "alerts" (e.g., your edits may be fine but did you know....)? The worst possible outcome of this review, in my opinion, is to tell ourselves we have resolved the meaning, implication, and process for issuing & logging alert/notice/warning/whatever when some come away thinking they say nothing about ed behavior, and others think they do. So we need to be clear and we need to apply a consistent brush to all eds. Are they perfunctory for showing up, or are they earned due to possible behavior? If they are perfunctory for showing up, and everyone knows that the connote nothing about behavior, what is gained by having them expire? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing complicated or sinister about the alert idea. as you surmise, it's "Hey, your edits may be fine but did you know" ... I think they should expire after a while because it's unreasonable to expect people to remember an FYI indefinitely. I'm trying very hard to create systems that work consistently and fairly: you're the one suggesting triage into established editors and, um, "bad apples" ;)   Roger Davies ^talk 16:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Issuing alerts (comments)

Draft text

• The stuff about edit notices has gone, and the relevant section in "Role of administrators has been expanded.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Is it is technically possible (and desirable) that alerts using the official template be logged automatically? Zero ^talk 03:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• A bot could do it, assuming the subst'd text of the official template contains some kind of wikilink, category, or nested non-subst template that the bot could use to locate each use of the template. — Darkwind ( talk) 07:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Is an editor alerted (a) that there is a general DS on, for example, "Pseudoscience", and must infer the articles covered, or (b) that the article they are working on, eg. Astrology, is covered by the DS on Pseudoscience? ie. is the alert on an article by article basis, or by DS areas?-- Iantresman ( talk) 22:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Any editor may alert any other editor that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for the area of conflict."

This implies that anyone involved in a talk page discussion on a topic under discretionary sanctions can receive (or give) an alert, that it is about user conduct not about content. Because in the contentious area of "pseudoscience", I've seen Editors who are on the skeptical side issue alerts to only those Editors who are seeking a NPOV or are sympathetic to a subject. It seems like DS should be levied at disruptive conduct, not because of the belief system or opinions of the Editor. I am just commenting here to verify this is the case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Liz, alerts are just that, a notification ("Please be aware" etc) that special rules apply to the area of conflict. Sanctions can be applied for behavioural issues but not for purely content ones.   Roger Davies ^talk 07:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• In my experience, allowing any editor to "alert" another editor in a logged way isn't a good idea, as it tends to be used as an intimidation tactic ("I'm alerting you and logging it to the case page because I think your behavior is a problem, watch it!") Or in other words, in my opinion, only uninvolved administrators should do the logging to the case page. -- El on ka 15:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The content of this is fine, but the template leads to the problem Elonka has identified. Has anyone here seen those scary looking notices that are actually trying to sell you an extended warranty? This is about as bad. A simple two sentence text message would do. Such as: "hey, just so you know, there are discretionary sanctions in force in this topic area. That means any administrator can levy nearly any restriction on you, see the link for more." -- Tznkai ( talk) 22:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not clear how and when alerts are issued, eg.

1. Must an alert be issued to a specific editor (on their talk page)? Or does a notice at the top of an article talk page count as the alert, that applies to all editors editing the article?
2. Is an alert issued per specific article, per topic, or does notifying an editor that there are "Discretionary sanctions" everywhere, count as sufficient? -- Iantresman ( talk) 10:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
3. How do I know that a specific article is "related" or "interpreted broadly" before it is too late? -- Iantresman ( talk) 10:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I came looking for this discussion because I saw someone "warned" recently for a trivial edit. Fix a typo, earn a warning? It's not proportionate. I haven't read everything, but overall I think that the proposals are good. I have two things to say about this particular area:

• First, I really like the idea of calling these "alerts" rather than "warnings". Warnings have the effect of running people off and embarrassing them. Whoever came up with this idea deserves a barnstar.
• I'd like to expand this to say that people shouldn't be warned or even "alerted" merely because they happened to edit the article once. The alerts really ought to go to people who are making multiple content edits. We do not benefit from "alerting" every single editor who happens to make a tiny edit, and I get the feeling that some people, at some articles, are "alerting" newcomers and passersby as a bit of a powertrip. We need these alerts to be provided when it matters, not on some AWB format-fixing run years before the person tries to do any serious work on the subject. (FYI, I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• @ WhatamIdoing: The movement to "alert" rather than warning is to remove any stigma around warnings and to reduce the legalistic stance around ArbCom Enforcement warnings. However I think there is a point about "power tripping" by some users. But I disagree that ppl shouldn't be alerted for any edit - the alert is not a punishment and is just information but I agree we should address the 'gate keeping' practices by some editors-- Cailil ^talk 09:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I would go a step further and simply call them "notifications" as that is all that they are. They are most certainly not warnings (in the normally understood en.wp sense) and are not intended to be a badge of shame. And no, nobody should be issuing them to someone who has made a minor edit that did not change the meaning of the text. That's just silly and could serve to drive off otherwise helpful editors. Anyone who makes a habit of doing so should first be asked to stop, and if they do not should be brought to the attention of admins and/or the community for appropriate action. These are not weapons for defending your territory, they are supposed to be a courtesy to let content editors know they are on dangerous ground and to be extra careful. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Notification" is even better.

Cailil, getting a "notification" that one false step at an article can get you blocked is, in practice, a scary thing that strongly discourages participation. IMO, the fewer pre-hint-of-any-problem "notifications" that we issue, the better. The "notification" log ought not be filled with the names of wikignomes. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dislike There are competing laudable goals here (reduce power tripping/badge of shame tactics vs editor e

Option-A Authorize DS by way of a perfunctory "Alert" just because someone stuck their toe in the water of a subject area to which DS applies. There is a litmus test we should apply to see if this is really what the community wants, and it's this .... create a bot to deliver the "alert" and lot the delivery automatically when the user's toe touches the water. In my view this is FATALLY DEFECTIVE because the community will shriek, it is really not good for editor retention, and it raises the question why we don't just put EVERYTHING under DS and be done with it.

Option-B Same as "A", but require some ill-defined subjective "more" before alerting/logging. This is FATALLY DEFECTIVE (I think) because I don't believe we will ever be able to define the "more" well enough for a bot to do it, and if so, the question of "more" will remain amorphous so alerting/logging will be just as prone to tactical use or power tripping or bade-of-shaming as what we have now.

Option-C Go back to Warning-For-Cause; is this fatally defective, or have we just not worked out the bugs yet? I think we should redouble efforts to improve this process. One of the positive aspects to this is that on average, a DS warning/alert/notice/whatever will arrive at a new eds talk page later in their wikipedia career, which should theoretically lessen the impact of these things on ed retention.

Please consider improving the WARNING process instead of continuing chaos with either a brainless or subjective tepid alert process. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Alerts are a bad idea see my comments below in a section called #Issuing alerts -- PBS ( talk) 11:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Are warnings appealable?

After all this discussion, we still don't seem to have resolved one of the questions that triggered the rewrite in the first place, which is, should warnings be considered a sanction and thus appealable, or not? I have argued that warnings should be appealable, but it would be nice to have a clarification of this point before a new draft is adopted.

BTW, there is still another issue originally raised which doesn't seem to have been addressed, which is in what circumstances will an administrator involved in imposing a sanction be permitted, or not permitted, to participate in an appeal of that sanction? Admittedly this is not necessarily an easy issue to resolve, but it would have been nice to see at least some discussion of it. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Gatoclass: Thanks for your comments, Gatoclass. On the first point here, the consensus view is that "warnings" phrased as though the editor is about to be sanctioned are in themselves sanctions and could theoretically be appealable. "Alerts" that draw the user's attention to the existence of discretionary sanctions are not sanctions – merely points of information – and cannot be appealed. We are therefore changing the system to make alerts, not warnings, the usual prerequisite of discretionary sanctions being issued. On the second point, administrators are disqualified from voting in appeals of their own actions; in all areas of the project, they can only comment as "the blocking administrator". Obvious this applies to AE and DS appeals too. Do you think further discussion or an attempt to change this status quo is needed, or were you trying to say we should codify this status quo in the draft? AGK [•] 12:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with the new alert system, and agree it eliminates many of the problems we've had up to now. But I don't think it answers the question of whether warnings, specifically, are appealable. Many AE cases, for example, result in warnings for the parties, and sometimes admins will issue warnings under DS unilaterally, my understanding is that in either case these will now be treated as sanctions and therefore appealable, but I'm concerned that if this issue is not clarified, we will be back to clarifications and amendments before long trying to resolve the matter again.

With regard to who can participate in an appeal, I think there is agreement that the admin imposing the sanction should not adjudicate the appeal, but what about other admins who, for example, supported the imposed sanction in the original request, are they likely to find that they made a mistake in the appeal, and if not, should they also be disallowed from adjudicating the appeal? And what about admins who opposed the original sanction, should they be permitted to adjudicate the appeal or not?

Admittedly some of these questions are not easy to resolve, but I'd still like to see some discussion about them. Gatoclass ( talk) 12:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Warnings (as a low-level sanction) will logically be appealable because, to warn, the issuer has had to make a finding of fact about the warned editor. This will probably make things easier to resolve than the current regime involving warnings.

The second issue you raise is I think covered by the text in the recusal sction: prior routine enforcement interactions and prior participation in enforcement discussions do not constitute involvement and are not usually grounds for recusal". Ultimately, this all comes down, I suppose, to what the admin had to say for him/herself earlier and what they have to say in the appeal, and indeed how they say it. This things are easier recognised that described ;)   Roger Davies ^talk 17:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with that interpretation of warnings (though I'm still mulling over whether or not to make a further proposal regarding their use). As for the second issue, I couldn't accept the text to which you refer as sufficient - at the very least, I think it should be made clear that the administrator imposing the original sanction cannot participate in the adjudication of the appeal. For other admins, you may be correct in suggesting that participation be left to discretion, on the basis that it would be difficult to draft a firm rule, but IMO it wouldn't hurt to add something to the draft about exercising such discretion. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If it helps, warnings are already included in the sanctions section, which can be pointed to in time of need.

On the appeal issue, I'm not entirely happy with the current wording about the enforcing administrator either. We could do worse than slightly tweaking the words you use ("administrator imposing the original sanction cannot participate in the adjudication of the appeal") and combining it with a policy. For instance, The enforcing administrator is accountable for their actions and expected to provide explanations at any appeal. They may not however participate in the adjudication of it.. Does this, or something similar, work for you?   Roger Davies ^talk 09:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I can get this shorter: The enforcing administrator is expected to justify their action at any appeal but may not however participate in the adjudication of it..   Roger Davies ^talk 09:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That looks okay for the enforcing admin, but a word or two of advice for other admins participating in the original discussion that led to the sanction might also be helpful. Perhaps I'll give some more thought to it. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion, the admins who participated in the original AE thread should not be allowed to adjudicate a hypothetical appeal, because they have already made up their minds, which conflicts with the basic idea of what an appeal is. I know that I'm in the minority thinking this, but I agree that we should add a word or two of advice for them. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Theoretically they shouldn't participate in the appeal, but there are so few admins active at AE that it may simply be impractical to restrict them all. Also, it could open the system to gaming, as admins could overturn a sanction simply by holding their fire until the appeal. So I think there are valid arguments on both sides, which makes it difficult to compose a practical guideline. Perhaps a general statement of principle might be possible though. Gatoclass ( talk) 12:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

My view is that administrators should only be disqualified from hearing subsequent appeals if they put their name to the sanction being appealed (or they are involved). AGK [•] 12:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

By "putting their name to the sanction" I assume you mean, agreeing that the sanction is appropriate. I've considered that possibility myself, however, it seems to me that would allow opponents of the sanction a free hand at any subsequent appeal. Gatoclass ( talk) 13:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually meant they put the sanction into effect (i.e. signed the log on the case page), not that they merely said it's justified. AGK [•] 16:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. That would certainly be an easily interpreted "bright line" rule, but I'm still not sure that leaving the restriction so narrow would be entirely fair to the appellant. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• The provisions authorizing discretionary sanctions in the individual cases will also need to be reviewed and harmonized. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions says that "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning", which conflicts with the new provisions that call for "alerts" rather than "warnings".  Sandstein  14:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Alerts/notifications: to log or not to log

This has been a recurrent issue, and there's been some discussion among arbitrators. So where are things up to?

* Alerts/notifications: these will likely be vanilla notifications than a topic is covered by discretionary sanctions and that misconduct within the topic can leave someone open to sanction. Someone cannot be sanctioned purely because they have been notified: they have to engage in misconduct AFTER they have been notified. While they will not be appealable, they do not carry any stigma.

• To log: The arguments in favour of logging alerts are:
  1. It makes life much easier for enforcing admins to have a central reference point;
  2. central logs will highlight abusive/trolling notifications;
  3. if there isn't a central log, people will create their own unofficial ones.
• Not to log: The arguments against logging are:
  1. it upsets people being on a central list as it carries a stigma;
  2. it makes someone a target;
  3. as it cannot be appealed it's a permanent blot on their copybook (a sort of "block lite" I suppose).

Let's have arguments for and against please.   Roger Davies ^talk 19:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Copy-pasting comments I've made elsewhere:

I strongly favor not logging notifications. Logging is more trouble than it is worth, and scrapping it would solve several recent incidents I'm aware of (and similar ones I probably don't know about) where the notified party took offense at having the notice "officially logged". I guarantee that each "side" in any dispute knows whether the people on the other side have been notified or not, and will joyfully link to the notification if needed. The change to the wording (no longer "warnings") is a tremendous improvement, but scrapping the logging of notifications would be even better.

I suggest thinking of it like an edit warring notice; AN3 sees a lot more action than AE, and the reporting party is relied on to provide a diff of a notice, and it generally works.

The problem is, as clear as we try to be, and as carefully as it is worded, notices are going to continue to be used occasionally as weapons by opposing parties, much as an edit warring notice is often used as a weapon by the other edit warrior. But there's less "sting" involved in an EW notice, and I believe that's largely to do with the lack of official logging. No one asks for an EW notice to be "vacated". Let's take the sting away from DS notices too; the notification will still be there. If someone appears to be using notifications as a harassment tool, we can address that the same way we might address someone using EW notices as a harassment tool.-- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• There must be a distinction between the editor who is merely going about their normal day-to-day activity and happens to edit a contentious article, and an editor who focuses on a topic that happens to be contentious. Logged warnings against the former are highly inflammatory, while they generally should apply to the latter. If there is no objective way to distinguish the two cases, there should be no logs because claiming "don't worry, we tar everyone who edits this article with the same brush" is at best misguided. Johnuniq ( talk) 20:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• My view is that logging is far better than the alternative, which only gives more weight to people using notices as cudgels in debate. The Committee has been working on removing the stigma from the notifications, but there's only so much we do as long as the community keeps on calling them warnings or lending them such a stigma; I suppose you can't just say 'you're wrong', but a notice that you've been notified of sanctions in an area ≠ some misapplied block on your log, and we (the collective we) should stop acting that is the same. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 20:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• I believe there should be no logging until an uninvolved admin determines that a user has been behaving badly. At that point a warning could be logged. It can then be followed with a sanction if the behavior recurs. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with Jehochman. If we are no longer treating alerts like warnings then they should not be logged. But if as a consequence of misbehaviour after an alert an editor is warned/admonished that should be logged.
  The process question then is what implication does this have for enforcing admins. Well if the edit summary was always the same or similar a post to a user page would be quickly found in the last 999 edits. So we could make a template that has a standard edit summary-- Cailil ^talk 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• No logging. I agree with Floquenbeam; his comparison with the way edit warring notices function (=better, and without any logging) is compelling. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC).
• On balance, I think that the hassle associated with logging alerts/warnings/etc outweighs the benefit of doing so. It is too easy to (mis)use disputes and appeals, etc., about these notifications as a sideshow that distracts from the core issue about whether there is actionable misconduct in a topic area. We should instead adopt Cailil's idea of recommending a standard edit summary (e.g. "Discretionary sanctions alert"), which can be searched for in talk page histories. We should also consider expanding the fourth criterium for receiving alerts, "through their actions, clearly demonstrated that they are already aware that the area of conflict is under discretionary sanctions", with something like "through their actions, or by participating in discussions in which discretionary sanctions are mentioned ...". This would enable administrators to ascertain relatively easily whether editors know about discretionary sanctions even without referring to a log.  Sandstein  21:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• The best way to handle this is with a bot. When someone edits an article under DS for the first time, a message is automatically posted to the user's talk page. The bot can take care of logging, if desired. This also makes the process impersonal, which is better in this case. vzaak 21:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Johnuniq's point that there must be a distinction between the editor who is merely going about their normal day-to-day activity and happens to edit a contentious article, and an editor who knowingly focuses on a topic that is contentious. Some editors have tens of thousands of edits. Myself, I have nearly 20,000 edits [1] over the course of almost 5 years. I've participated in dozens (hundreds?) of dispute resolution discussions, some of which were at AE, others where discretionary sanctions came up. I don't remember them all. According to the way that this is worded, such editors can be sanctioned without warning for a single innocent mistake or even a temporary lapse of judgment (perfection is not required). It doesn't seem realistic to expect editors to recall every single discussion that they've ever had on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I would submit that all articles under DS should have a prominent editnotice regarding DS. In my proposal of a bot that handles all talk-page notices, a user re-editing a DS article after some time interval would receive the notice again. vzaak 23:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• As I wrote somewhere above, I don't see any useful purpose in logging alerts. Some people are still writing as if an alert is an admonition or somehow unfriendly. It should instead be thought of as useful, friendly information and be worded as pleasantly as possible. Receiving an alert should carry no stigma whatever. Zero ^talk 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I find it chilling that a last-notice-before-block notice, that bypasses normal talk page discussions and the official warning policy, would be referred to as "friendly". — Neotarf ( talk) 07:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That's because you don't understand what is being proposed. There is no "last-notice-before-block" aspect to it whatever, nor is anyone proposing to bypass discussion. I suggest you read the proposal again. Zero ^talk 08:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Answered below; the new proposal has no such language. —

• Stigmas are a cultural construct. ArbCom cannot simply announce upon high that such alerts/warnings/notifications/whatever-we-call-them "do not carry any stigma". Only culture can make such a determination. To think otherwise is the height of hubris. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is exactly the sort of thing that should be made clear. What it means is that nobody can correctly say "you were warned about your behavior" merely on the basis that you received the standard alert. All they can correctly say (in the absence of more information) is "you were notified of the presence of discretionary sanctions". Zero ^talk 05:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• While I'm somewhat agnostic on how specifically to do it, we need a good way of determining whether or not an editor can reasonably be said to have been made aware of discretionary sanctions in an area. Notifications are not an indication of wrongdoing, they're just a heads up to say "Hey, this is a particularly sensitive and touchy area, and so there are some special restrictions in place." I think that's far superior to having an editor whacked out of the blue with discretionary sanctions when they weren't even aware such a thing was applicable. That being said, I think there are several ways we can reasonably presume an editor is aware of the discretionary sanctions, including (but not necessarily limited to):
  • The editor has explicitly referred to the applicability of DS in a remark or edit summary, or has replied to another editor's remark in which that editor did so.
  • The editor has joined conversations regarding clarifications of the DS or alleged violations of them.
  • The editor has been explicitly notified of the DS.
  • The editor has made reasonably significant edits or reverts to a page containing a prominent editnotice specifying the applicability.
• What I would be categorically opposed to is allowing the "warriors" on either side be in charge of keeping track of who has been warned on the "other side". Logging is infinitely preferable to that. But regardless of our ultimate solution, notices aren't warnings. Indeed, sometimes an AE request is closed with an official, logged warning that an editor did violate the sanction, and that while no action will be taken at that time, future violations will lead to harsher remedies. Those warnings may be applied only by an uninvolved admin and are logged essentially as sanctions (and somewhat are a type of suspended sanction, since they are there to indicate that future violations will be treated more harshly as a repeat breach). They are very distinct from the simple "Hey, be careful, there are some special considerations when editing here" notices. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• What's with all this templating? If you want people to know that an article is under special conditions, why not just tell them? And let them know what the conditions are so they can act accordingly. Here is an example of a consensus discussion where editors were starting to cycle a policy page without getting prior consensus. A note was posted on the discussion itself--as a reminder to *everyone*--and the discussion was able to go forward.— Neotarf ( talk) 16:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• People can (and do) edit articles without going anywhere near the talk page. And many of those that do simply don't read all the clutter at the top of the article's talk page. A talk page notice is therefore considerably less effective at drawing someone's attention to something than a message left on the editor's talk page.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If someone edits a page, the edit is either a problem or not a problem. If an edit is not a problem, why chase after some good-faith editor with a "last notice before block" template slammed on their talk page. If the edit is a problem, what good is a template that links to a 300-page document of closely written insider jargon? The edit needs to be reverted, without the user who did a good-faith revert being dragged off to WP:AE. And the the user who did the problem edit needs to be brought into the talk page consensus discussion.— Neotarf ( talk) 05:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get the "last-notice-before-block" idea from? It is not present in the proposal. Zero ^talk 08:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So, Roger Davies, I'm confused. Are you saying that a vital part of the proposal is not available for the community to examine? How then can anyone be asked to make a meaningful evaluation? — Neotarf ( talk) 11:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I get your point, I think. Previously, in principle, miscreants had to be warned about their behavior first, then could be smacked if they misbehave again. Under the new proposal they can, in principle, be smacked the first time they misbehave provided they knew there were sanctions in place. Did I understand you? I'm not sure that the difference will be as great in practice as you seem to think (the words "repeated or serious" will cover most cases), but you could start a new section of this page to discuss it. This section is about whether alerts should be logged or not, which is a separate issue. Zero ^talk 11:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I personally support continued logging. I agree in particular with the third argument for logging in particular: regardless of whether notices are logged centrally, I think people will continue to keep these logs one way or another. Centralizing them will ease the job of trying to track them down. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Unlike the other warnings, DS alerts (which are not really warnings in the new draft) are required for the imposition of a sanction. By contrast, the other warnings are not necessarily a requisite for the imposition of blocks: in certain cases, a restriction may be imposed even on an editor who was never warned that his behaviour was disruptive, whereas nobody can be sanctioned unless he was aware that DS had been authorised for the topic area he was editing in (usually as a result of a warning, although all other relevant circumstances may be taken into account to determine whether a person knew about them).

  As a result, logging these alerts is quite useful, for it makes it possible for a person starting an AE thread to link to the relevant diff without having to waste a lot of time searching (for example, the alert may have been delivered years before or the editor in question may have switched accounts some time after the alert and before the current AE thread or other cases which would make it difficult to locate the diff).

  Doing away with logging would, therefore, in my opinion be problematic, because it would make that much more difficult to find the edit containing the alert; and I predict that if we were to scrap logging, quite soon the various parties would move the log to their userspace (or, at least, those parts they consider particularly useful...); so, basically, we'd be moving possible disruption from one place to another (and one where, by the way, an editor is generally granted considerable leeway).

  The way I understand it, the main problem is the location of the log: right now, people who have been informed that DS have been authorised are lumped together with those who have actually been sanctioned as a result of those DS, which may give the impression even the former somehow misbehaved. In my opinion, the most efficient solution (the one which would allow us not to lose the advantages of logging the alerts, while trying to minimise the disadvantages) would be to move the log to its own page, with a prominent notice at the top reading something along the lines of "inclusion here does not imply any sort of misconduct". Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• In practice, it's the expectation at WP:AN3 that warnings are made before reporting editors: the reporting template expects a diff, and I've observed reports declined due to lack of warning. NE Ent 10:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The four of us (Noetica, SMcCandlish, OhConfucious, and myself), were not provided with any diffs, although we were plainly accused of misconduct. Apparently this is how WP:AE works. The only reason given for the warnings was that we had given evidence without being admins. — Neotarf ( talk) 11:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• You may be misremembering (after all, it was a year ago). The warnings did contain a diff to this and the reason was not for giving "evidence without being admins" but for "using AE as a soapbox". Which may also, perhaps inadvertently, be what you're doing here. If you have any further meta comments, could you please make them in a separate section?   Roger Davies ^talk 14:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no "misremembering". I have provided the diff to the exact wording. This is the exact definition of "casting aspersions": to accuse someone of egregious misconduct without evidence. If anyone thinks the link provided here contains some smoking gun that I violated some policy, it doesn't. It doesn't even show that I have ever edited in that subject area. It's a link to the archive of the case Apteva filed against Noetica.

As for the rest, I will answer on the appropriate talk page. — Neotarf ( talk) 11:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidently you do misremember. To quote the diff you give, "[Neotarf is warned not to] cast aspersions against others or to otherwise continue personalising […] disagreements". Kindly avoid derailing this consultation by reference to specific warnings and sanctions given to you in the past. AGK [•] 23:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• @ NE Ent: I don't question that (mainly because I've not been active there in quite a bit); however, the difference is that if I were to block for edit warring an editor who hadn't been warned beforehand, the block would still comply with policy (granted, it might be considered ill-advised, but it would still be valid), whereas if I were to impose a discretionary sanction on an editor who had never been given an alert, the restriction would be invalid, because one of the requirements for its imposition has not been met. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I fall with Salvio here. The separation of the log might help easy the stigma that exists (hopefully in conjunction with an explicit notice). That being said as a result of the requisite nature of notifications, I find it important that they are logged somwhere. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a calf have? Four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it so.
—  Abraham Lincoln (attributed)

If notifications are logged centrally, and such logging is a prerequisite to sanctions, they're going to be treated as stigma carring warnings, regardless of what the committee may say. Which means editors will appeal them to WP:AE and the committee itself, no matter what editors / admins / arbitrators may state. Waste of time, and aggravation, for all involved.

• The first primary argument for central logging seem to be its lack will result in editors keeping hitlists against their wiki-enemies. So explicitly forbid editors placing diffs / links / notes of warnings on-wiki. (Obviously the talk page histories will serve as logs).
• The second argument seems to be concern admins would not know an editor has been warned. The Ent answer is .... so what? If in doubt, warn 'em again. If an editor is notified for R & I in January for saying Obviously, Ents are feebleminded and no one remembers / cares in July when they say Elobonians are dumber than Irish Setters, it ain't gonna hurt anything if they "escape" sanctions with another notification. The true warriors demanding Wikipedia post TRUTH ™ in a DS area will be persistent enough that someone will remember the notification and dig out the diff when reporting their misbehavior (editor) or imposing a sanction (editor with sysop). NE Ent 01:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• No log, some admins would abuse the log and harass editors. It happens under the current system and it would further be encouraged if it were to be logged. The templates themselves act as logs since the number of transclusions can easily be determined. Kumioko ( talk) 14:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Call for ArbCom and the community to back the reform.

  I know several editors who have suffered emotional distress from the current DS system; thus I'm keen for the proposed reform to proceed. Leaving aside centralised logging for a moment, it's surprising that the proposal has been the subject of so much bloat. The new system comprises all of the elements of a much fairer, more functional system that will do two things at once: (i) enable the project to manage hot-button topics with limited resources; and (ii) remove the personal, punitive smell that surrounds the DS system.

  I'm satisfied that converting warnings to alerts is not just playing with semantics, and that a key motivation is to protect both regular editors of a contentious topic and those who might wander unknowingly into it and edit without realising that they might be exposing themselves to accusations of bad behaviour in context. As has been said above, one box of many at the crowded top of a talkpage alerting editors to take care is not likely to be noticed by many editors.

  I'm not persuaded by arguments that the new system will stigmatise; rather, it's a practical measure that once introduced will probably be seen as an obvious improvement and one that took too long to come. Nor am I persuaded by the view that an alert will expose an editor to subsequent sanction by an admin without due process.

  So I encourage people to get behind the reform proposal. Test antagonistic views against the facts, by actually reading through the text of the proposal—I fear there's misinformation abroad.

  Quick dispatch of this matter will allow the new committee to knuckle down and concentrate on further reforms. I encourage the committee to set a deadline and get it over and done with. We elect you partly to reform the system, not just to keep the seat warm. Tony (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the routine adding of random editors to cases. This system is too easily trolled; someone who is trying to game the system need only find one clueless admin, or shop enough forums, and sooner or later, the law of averages will catch up, and something will stick. New names should be added to cases in the same way the original names were added: in a comprehensive RFCU-similar forum that gives users the chance to participate before being sanctioned, to have any evidence presented against them, and to answer to any implications of wrongdoing. — Neotarf ( talk) 14:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  Are you talking about the giving of alerts/notices, the giving of sanctions, or both? In any case, there are a few too many misunderstandings of the procedure in there for me to concisely rebut, or indeed for me to take you seriously. AGK [•] 22:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

AGK, I am talking about the steps required for an Arbcom disciplinary procedure, whether it is called a "warning" or a "helpful, friendly notice" or a "fluffy bunny". If admins are required issue a "fluffy bunny" before indeffing someone, then the criteria for adding names to the "fluffy bunny list" need to be spelled out. I remember seeing the name of an editor who just ran for ArbCom on one of these lists, and wondering what he had done to get on it, or what powerful person he had gotten on the wrong side of. At least a hundred people see this list every month.

And yes, there do seem to be a lot of misunderstandings of the procedure. I wonder if the members of the committee understand exactly how it is being used in actual practice. There has been no explanation for the reason behind this latest proposal, or what perceived problem it is trying to solve. And now we find out the whole proposal is not here, there is more somewhere else, that has not been made publicly available. A summary statement might go a long way towards clearing this up. Regards, — Neotarf ( talk) 08:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I second AGK's remark. Even though I know Neotarf personally online, I look aghast at what has turned into an unrelenting campaign against DS, against the reform proposal, against just about everything. Now I ask Neotarf to stop seeing spiders under every nook and cranny and to contribute in good faith to this page; otherwise, not to contribute at all. This is getting beyond a joke. Tony (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Insufficient clarity to offer opinion At top level articles unambiguously controlled by DS, (ie, Climate change, Abortion, India...), does an editor's initial article tweak or talk page comment - even the most helpful - justify "alerting" that editor about DS? If the answer is "yes", then central logging reaps benefits with no cost. If the answer is "no", then central logging will continue to be poorly installed lightning rod - still perceived as needed but runs high risk of burning down house. The best way to allay that risk would be better messaging about the meaning of alerts and when they should be given. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• An alert is not a warning/caution/punishment. It's an alert - a notification. A person already knowing that an article is under AC/DS is the only reason a user should *not* be alerted. An an alert is a point of information (an FYI) not a warning-- Cailil ^talk 14:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is a discussion at ANI over a user added to a case decision. The consensus so far says the notification is being used as a chilling effect tactic. — Neotarf ( talk) 00:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Neotarf listen to Tony above. What you list here is irrelevant - AQFK incorrectly used a template that can only be used by admins for formal AE warnings. What is being suggested here, in this reform, is the use of a new template as an FYI rather than a warning. This is being done to (amongst other things) reduce legalistic attitudes, and remove any perceived stigma, and address the chilling effect of the current uw-sanctions template. Your post above provides no counterpoint or additional information to this discussion that hasn't already been thrashed out over the last few months. Indeed it is actually an example of why this is needed-- Cailil ^talk 02:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree with Neotarf's concerns and I am also seriously concerned about the ramifications of this "review". DS's are heavily abused by some admins now but no one does anything to stop them. I don't see anything in this review that would make me think that is going to change. Especially since it has widely been agreed by the admin community that an admin who has been involved in actions against an editor isn't involved..which pretty much makes the first point of the review criteria irrelevant and nothing more than a hollow statement. This entire review, when reading between the lines does nothing to help Wikipedia or the community but gives some admins who deal frequently with DS's and arbcom sanctions more power. A review is a good idea and I support that, but this one is going to continue the existing pattern of abuse. If a review is seriously being considered then there needs to be something added that would allow someone to take action against the admins if they are abusing it. We shouldn't need to do a multi month arbcom case just to remove the tools fro an abusive admin. Let the bureaucrats have a discussion and decide if the case is obvious and warrants action or if it needs to be kicked up to Arbcom based on the circumstances. Kumioko ( talk) 14:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Logging: Alternatives to logging at the case page

At the moment, the biggest issue is with the stigma of having these notifications lumped in with sanctions. There's a number of things that have been suggested to improve this, rewording the template, renaming them to "alerts", separating them from the case page - but whilst we require an alert before any sanction we will need a way to check that the alert has been provided.

Currently we log them, but that has the stigma. We could remove all logs, but that leaves the old-fashioned trawl through talk pages and that's inefficient. What about tagging the alert? All we'd need to do is set up an edit filter on talk pages to display a tag, eg Tag:DS alert, when someone adds the alert. This will mean that anyone can check very quickly whether the user has been previously alerted to the DS (using the Tag filter), but does not log it for people to go searching against. It won't show up in any other searches, thereby removing the stigma.

Would appreciate thoughts and any other suggestions to take this away from the case page. Worm^TT( talk) 12:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What's in a name? that which we call a warning
By any other name would smell as rotten;
So warning would, were it not warning call'd,
Retain that foul stigma which he owes
Without that title

I stand by my previous comments. Trawling is good! It means that an editor who stays on the straight and narrow after notification will have the what little stigma there is from a user talk page notice fade into dust ....; the recurrent warriors will have recent enough warnings that the "other side" can easily dig out the diff when they rat them out. "Efficient" is not a Wikipedia value, nor part of what makes it great. It says here Earth has 4,500 authors making 11,000 edits. That's the epitome of inefficient. NE Ent 13:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let's see if I understand this....

(A) Jane makes an edit at (for example) Abortion

(B) Any editor can post to Jane's page {{Template:Whatever We Call The DSAlert Template}}

(C) By programming, the alert delivered in B gets a "tag"

(D) Jane deletes the alert from her page

(E) Six months later, Jane hits a rough patch and exercises bad judgment on a series of edits. Other editors want to know if Jane had ever been "alerted", so they simply look up Jane on a yet-to-be-named Special:Log

If that is the concept, in my current state of relative know-nothingness it looks like a great idea! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And AGK put the basic stuff ready for this into the template some time ago,   Roger Davies ^talk 14:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for speedy response and thanks AGK for setting that up. Query, what's been the roadblock or opposing arguments? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the template is not for the old warning but for the proposed alert system, which isn't in place yet.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Using tags sounds like a very good idea to me to avoid the stigma problem. There's some risk of false negatives, where the filter won't tag manual alerts that don't use the prescribed template (maybe the filter can be set to recognize links to the discretionary sanctions remedy?), but that's a minor concern. A bot could alert all previous recipients of warnings, making the current warnings logs redundant. It is even conceivable that a bot could auto-alert all editors who edit articles in certain categories associated with DS topics, which would take humans out of the loop in most cases.  Sandstein  22:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I follow all the details, but this sounds like a good idea. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• This is going to cause more abuse. If someone is in a disagreement with another editor then all they need to do is add an alert to a page to make that editor tracked. Then others who feel the same way can pile on, leading to the editor to be blocked or banned over nothing. This has happened even by admins trying to get people blocked, so letting anyone add the alert is only going to be trouble. Additionally, its also possible of false positives where the filter says the user had an alert but didn't. All too often the admins are too lazy to actually check and perform due diligence and just act thereby making the problem worse. Kumioko ( talk) 14:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

AbuseFilter 602

After some teething problems, I have written AbuseFilter 602. Any alert (using the new {{ alert}} template) will now be tagged as " discretionary sanctions alert". I believe this eradicates the need to have any sort of manual log at all for alerts. To discover whether a user has been alerted, all one would now need to do is open the history of their talk page, type "discretionary sanctions alert" beside Tag filter, and hit Go. AGK [•] 00:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Well done! Which means we'll have to make use of the template mandatory, I guess.   Roger Davies ^talk 00:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

We're not supposed to a bureaucracy (see also WP:DTTR) NE Ent 00:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I think we're down to least bad options. Or we stick with the status quo. Though thinking about it more, nobody objects to template delivery for the Signpost or DYKs. Maybe we should turn it into a barnstar. "Here's a barnstar for editing in a tpic under discretionary sanctions. You probably need to be aware etc etc"   Roger Davies ^talk 00:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, Roger may have meant making use of {{ Z33}} (on which the AbuseFilter relies) mandatory. It seems tidier to make the actual alert template mandatory, though, and in any event anybody who thinks NOTBURO applies to arbitration probably needs a reality check... AGK [•] 00:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It may become a status symbol to have received the Z33 warning. It sounds mysterious, like Area 51. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

A Z3 is a much better status symbol than a {{ Z33}}. NE Ent 16:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Pillars apply everywikiwhere; while the overall buro level of AC is not in scope in this discussion, whether the specific proposal makes something more buro or less buro should be a factor taken into consideration by the committee. NE Ent

Roger Davies is a genius. In all other cases I can think of, I am bitterly against hat-collecting. But... people do it. And... IRA, 9/11, cold fusion, Ayn Rand, UFO... these pages are POV-battlegrounds, and every additional non- WP:INVOLVED editor who we can encourage to show up deserves that friggin barnstar. Support filterBoht#602, and STRONGLY support the Fuzzy-Bunny-Barnstar Slash AC/DS-Alert-Not-Warning For Editing Above And Beyond The Call Of wikiDuty. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Test 1, Hooray, I alerted myself;

Test 2, Maybe there is server delay but I could not make the tag filter "discretionary sanctions alert" pull anything up even after ~7 minutes +/-.

I love the concept. Thanks for working on it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@ NewsAndEventsGuy: I think the filter was configured last night to only get tripped by admins (because it was still being tested). Try it again; it should work. AGK [•] 12:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I re-alerted myself today and waited ~45 min. Still can't call it up via the tag field. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)success! Suggestion, is it possible for the return hits to indicate which subject area each alert was for? It would be a pain to get 12 hits for someone and have to open up each to find out if they were notified for a specific subject area. Ideally, the edit summary would take care of that, but given the iffy diligence of eds completing the edit summary that's hit or miss. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair question; I've thought of it myself, actually. It's possible, with a lot of fiddly extra code and a reliance on the editor giving the alert following even more fiddly instructions. However, most editors only edit one (or maybe a handful of) DS-enabled topic area(s). We're probably never going to have an editor with a record alerts for every topic area, in other words, so distinguishing in the tag log between topic areas seems unnecessary, and will make the technical system a lot more breakable. AGK [•] 17:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess "wait and see" is a perfectly valid approach instead of guessing what needs will arise. Sounds good. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Alerts are a bad idea see my comments below in a section called #Issuing alerts (Comments #2) -- PBS ( talk) 11:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks, AGK, this looks like a good solution to the logging problem.  Sandstein  18:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• I don't know if the alert is a good idea. On the front end it appears to be but it also means every edit ever made has to go through the filter which increases the load on the servers. It was said in the past that people didn't want to put sanctions on a filter to prevent editors from editing against their sanctions. If that has now changed then I think it would be better to create a sanction filter. That would basically eliminate 75% or more (it would never be able to catch 100%) of the problems that are being encountered and be a big step to putting AE out of business. Kumioko ( talk) 14:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Well done AGK, let's hope it works :) Worm^TT( talk) 08:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Possible problem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but the {{ Z33}} template is triggered each time the page is edited. So after a user has been alerted on his/her talk page, subsequent edits to the talk page produce the "are you sure you want to alert?" message along with the alert tag. Was the plan to manually remove {{ Z33}} after an alert is given? vzaak 03:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let me look into that. The filter may have been slightly misconfigured. AGK [•] 10:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  @ Vzaak:   Fixed. Thanks! AGK [•] 10:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  @ AGK: I don't see any tagging now. I just alerted myself with {{subst:ds/alert|ps}}, and there was no tag for that edit or for subsequent edits. Before the recent change, tagging on the first edit didn't work either; only subsequent edits got tagged. vzaak 15:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Issuing alerts (Comments #2)

Any editor may alert any other editor that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for the area of conflict.

As one editor can alert another that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for the area of conflict, without "the other" having ever edited an article in the area in question--the wording no contains requirement for editing--then one may as well create a page (similar to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions) that contain all the current "discretionary sanctions" (eg the links in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Affected areas but with more details) and warn all users simultaneously with a bot job that links to that page on all user talk pages. Then whenever another "area of conflict" is agreed by Arbcom, or a current one is changed, then another message can be sent to all editors, ordering them to look at the updated list. Job done with no arbitrary list!Y and if the link and warning is included in the greeting messages that is often placed on a new users talk page, no one will ever be able to claim that they have not been alerted.

I would like to use sarcasm here, but I know it does not work well, so I will just say that I think the whole idea of alert lists is harmful to the project as it just reinforces the idea that Wikipedia is becoming more and more bureaucratic and a less and less friendly place to which to contribute, particularly if one usually only dabbles in a few pages that are far from the vitriol that surrounds some of the areas of conflict.

I fail to see the advantage of issuing alerts as most editors most of the time are disinterested parties to the issues for which "discretionary sanctions" have been issued. The only reason for logging warnings is because many arbcom announcements contain the wording "Articles which relate to {topic}, broadly interpreted" and as an administrator may not see behaviour on a specific page as a repeat of behaviour over many pages, a list of warning of disruptive behaviour in an "area of conflict" is useful to administrators in reducing the very time consuming business of trawling through a large users talk page history to see if they have ever been warned in that area before. -- PBS ( talk) 11:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I recently closed an move request on a page called Galicia (Eastern Europe) as no consensus. One of the options was to move it to Galicia (Central Europe). If there is another request to move it to Galicia (Central Europe) for which there is a consensus to do so, does the page stop being covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe as the consensus is that it is in Central Europe and not Eastern Europe (then is it still under "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted")?

"broadly interpreted" covers lots of ground and many articles can fall under more than one grouping. For example someone who grew up way down south in Invercargill may be interested in classical music (but have little interest of knowledge European geography or politics) and by chance edit an historical biography article about an East European composer. Should they automatically be warned about " Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe". If so who decides the boundaries the phrase "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted"? If they have never had the need to engage in the rough-house of the Wikipedia name space before, I think that placing them on a list about possible sanctions is not the way to encourage such an editor to feel welcome.

So to sum up "Any editor may alert any other editor" is too broad. Trying to define it as "Any editor may alert any other editor [who has edited an article an area of conflict]", causes too many problems with definition because of the phrase "broadly interpreted". So I say drop the formal "issuing of alerts" and keep the system of warnings but restrict it to a voluntary list which is added to by administrators which can be appealed to ANI in the usual way (but noting my worries over ANI made above) -- PBS ( talk) 11:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If there was per se a punitive implication to receiving an alert under the proposed system, that would be a reasonable post; but this will explicitly not be the case. Centralised logging is not a creature of the Stasi or the NSA: it's a practical measure, for example, to prevent people being alerted multiple times. "I fail to see the advantage of issuing alerts"—you don't have the horror of trying to manage battlefield wars on hot-button issues with limited human resources. I doubt there's a practical alternative to this proposal, which is why I support the basic thrust. Tony (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"If there was per se a punitive implication to receiving an alert under the proposed system, that would be a reasonable post" So you do not think it a reasonable post! Tony you write "explicitly not be the case", Where is the explicit comment in the proposal? "you don't have the horror" do you mean "one does not have the horror" or do you mean that PBS does not have the horror? "I doubt there's a practical alternative to this proposal, which is why I support the basic thrust" what exactly do you think is the basic thrust of this logging because all I see is the devil in the detail making it an nasty suggestion.

I would be more interested if you would explain to me if my two practical objections about any editor can alert any other editor with out any restrictions on applicability and how does one decide the scope of "Articles which relate to {topic}, broadly interpreted"? -- PBS ( talk) 20:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a reasonable post. 3rr / edit warring works reasonably well, without much drama, and requires no centralized logging. NE Ent 23:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Belief that "3RR/edit warring works reasonably well" reminds me of the fellow who fixes headaches by hitting his toe with a hammer. If there's an alternative, we should take it seriously. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@ NewsAndEventsGuy: I am sorry (maybe I missed a converstaion, or perhaps I am rather dense), but please expand on "If there's an alternative..." because I do not know what it is that you think it is that needs an alternative. -- PBS ( talk) 12:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Could be a miscommunication, and I don't feel like working it out will move the review process along, so please forget I said anything. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I am even more confused. Moving the review process along to what? -- PBS ( talk) 12:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

To its conclusion. We are holding this review so as to eventually adopt an updated, better version of the arbitration standard DS remedy. AGK [•] 12:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah a remedy that will give the Arbcom and supporting admins even more power that gives us regular editors even less rights. Its adds more flexibility to blocking admins and less AGF to editors who have "violated" a rule. This DS review doesn't level the playing field or make things more fair, its just another power grab. This will have the inevitable conclusion of expanding further the rift between admins and editors. DS's are abused now it will be even worse when this joke of a process is pushed through. This whole process improvement is a disgrace. Kumioko ( talk) 13:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The new system retains the same checks and balances as the old one, tries to emphasise softer remedies over hardline ones, and reduces the oppression exerted on templated editors. I therefore find little credibility in this analysis. AGK [•] 13:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And I see no credibility in the argument that this is beneficial to anyone but the admins doing the blocking. Broader discretion on when, how and what they can do, and calling it reform. This "reform" is just window dressing for allowing a few abusive admins to have more power with less justification or avenue for recourse. This reform allows the same admins who have abused this system in the past to continue abusing it with less accountability. Anyone who thinks this reform will be a benefit to anyone besides those who are blocking are kidding themselves. This policy is going to end up as the policy version of the Visual Editor disaster. This system needs to be reformed, what you are doing here is taking spam and covering it with mushrooms (or other Fungi) and BBQ sauce and calling it a steak. As long as the ability exists for abusive admins to have unlimited discretion over when and what they can do to editors without any reasonable appeal process for those editors this project is a joke. The sheer volume of discussion here in this venue that few watch ensures that the vast majority of editors, outside those who have a vested interest in the status quo, do not get involved. This venue amounts to posting a community notice on the 5th page of the paper knowing no one will see it and be able to complain. You say my statements have no credibility but the problem with that statement is I am one of the few outside this circle of admins that understands the process and can see through this farse for what it is. Kumioko ( talk) 16:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Without seeing you articulate the other sides claims of benefits and then reason your way to your conclusion, this lowly editor equates multiple lines of protest as ignorable rant. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly it is a bit of a rant. I have articulated time and time again and it lead to nothing because the admins that support this have all the power. The editors have none because we, according to the Arbcom and the admins are clueless because we are not one of them. They don't really care what we editors say, they are going to do whatever they want, that is also what I have seen them do time and time again. So if you feel like dismissing my comments as rant feel free, just remember it a few months from now when they ban you from the project for making an edit that some admin feels is within the scope of a sanction because some alert told them so. I don't know everything about Arbcom or these processes but I know that a lot of admins who are attracted to this venue because it gives them a feeling of power. They abuse it and get away with that because there is no accountability for admins. So for every 100 admins that screw up, only one gets desyssopped after a month or more of conversation. Learn more about the process before you dismiss my statements. Its an abusive process and too open to the individual admins discretion. All it takes for an admin to ban an editor is to say they edited against some sanction, then the burdeon of proof is on the editor to prove otherwise...but they can't, because they can't edit. So it moves offline to Email that isn't transparent where they can be told no, without anyone seeing anything. Kumioko ( talk) 17:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• @ PBS: An enormous list sent to every account on the project? I don't think that's a sensible way of doing things. What about people that join the project after the list is sent out? What about the vast majority of contributors, who don't care about or have anything to do with these topics (and with arbitration itself)? Can you rely on people remembering a topic was mentioned in a list of twenty or thirty topics a bot delivered two or three years previously? This proposal seems as though it would resolve non-issues, and perhaps also introduce significant new problems. AGK [•] 12:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The list would not have to be sent to everyone only a link to a list. As I said above the link to the information can be contain within the greeting templates. BUT the point I was making was that singling out people for alerts are not desirable. Notice in this section not one person has addressed any of the specific issues I have raised against the use of alerts. If those specific reasons are not clear to you I can list as bullet points. -- PBS ( talk) 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Simply so we're both talking about the same thing (and everybody else knows what we're talking about too), it actually would be helpful if you would list your objections to alerting in bullet points. Sorry to make you jump through another hoop! AGK [•] 19:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@ AGK: you write "We are holding this review so as to eventually adopt an updated, better version of the arbitration standard DS remedy., but that sounds a little to me like the arguments in favour of manifest destiny or as Mrs. T government used to say TINA (there is no alternative). Your premise seem to be that there is going to be an adoption and that the adoption is for a "better version". However what is the current "standard DS remedy", and how is this better? There seems to be little discussion of the details of this proposal. It reminds me a lot of the whole WP:ATT fiasco. -- PBS ( talk) 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you participating in this consultation without having learned what the current remedy is? It is here, in the grey box. AGK [•] 19:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

See the links given by me at the start of this section which include the link you have provided, but it is not called the "standard DS remedy" it is called "Discretionary sanctions". However now that is answered do you see my point about TINA and the similarities with process that was used for adopting WP:ATT? An assumption over ATT was made by those that drafted it that NOR and V were broken and should be fixed and that they adopted a TINA attitude to all those who criticized their draft. -- PBS ( talk) 19:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

user:AGK did you miss this post or do you not want to comment on TINA? -- PBS ( talk) 14:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

As you did not elucidate what the "alternative" is, I see nothing substantive that needs my comment. AGK [•] 14:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerns surrounding "any editor may alert any other editor" have some merit. No matter how many disclaimers there are about alerts being non-stigmatizing and advisory-only, an editor issuing an alert to another editor who perceives the alerter as being "on the opposite side" will, despite all the disclaimers, perceive some degree of intimidation and uninvitedness. Further, many DS topics involve (how shall I put this delicately?) conspiracy-minded participants, and there are actual cases of people calling DS notices "threats". A bot that automatically hands out alerts will solve this problem and save everyone's time in the process. (Nobody is intimidated by a bot.) vzaak 17:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Having a bot issue the alerts was previously proposed. The consensus then held that because so many articles are peripherally related to each DS topic area, it would be impractical to have a bot issue the alerts. The bot would require an index of thousands articles affected by DS, and the index would have to be maintained by hand. For now, it seems like having alerts issued by hand, and instead de-stigmatising them, is the best solution. AGK [•] 19:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it's been adequately considered. Just going down the list of DS topics, in many cases there are categories already set up: Abortion -> Category:Abortion, Afghanistan -> Category:Afghanistan, Arab–Israeli conflict -> Category:Arab–Israeli conflict, etc. There's no reason to maintain a list of thousands of articles by hand. For an uncategorized article, a bot may record the first {{ alert}} manually issued, and thereafter handle subsequent alerts. So even in the worst case -- an uncategorized article -- a bot is still an all-win and no-loss time- and intimidation-saver.

It's very important to avoid the intimidation/uninvitedness factor. Remember there was even a (dismissed) ArbCom case which included complaints about DS notices as "threats". vzaak 20:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I pushed the bot hard, and am now biding my time. If this is adopted, as I expect it will be, somebody will eventually start making alert-related tools of various sorts and kinds for individual editors to run. Some amount of time later, bot automation for the top articles will be worthy of revisiting, and we'll have actual data about how its all working out to provide context. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, but I must stress the intimidation problem again. As a compromise, how about a very simple bot that reads a username+category entry from a page, removes the entry, and places the DS message on the user's page. That sounds roundabout, but it's all the difference in the world. This is not only for the benefit of the person being notified, it is also for the notifier. As someone who has been harassed by conspiracy-minded (and frankly weird) individuals, I very much wish to avoid poking these people directly. vzaak 21:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If you really want to go that way then disseminating in the way you propose is pointless as any editor at any time can edit a page that falls under a arbcom ruling particularly when they include the term "Articles which relate to {topic}, broadly interpreted". So you may as well publish a new item to all user talk pages similar to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost but for official arbcom announcements, frocking and defrocking of admins etc. You could call it the "the Wikipedia Gazette" after The London Gazette, there is no need for it to be as complicated as the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost it only needs to be a page of links with the latest news in one paragraph. Personally I have yet to see a strong augment in favour of alerts. It seems to me that ad-hock alerts on user talk pages are enough and do not need to be logged. Only warnings by admins logged ought to be logged and then only because it save administrative time. -- PBS ( talk) 14:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense that some editors are issued with a warning for a particular subject area, and not others. It is unfair. Either the subject area applies to everyone, or, a particular editor is under sanctions, regardless of subject area. Since subjects areas are not in themselves bad editors, it makes sense that certain editors are the potential problem. Of course it might be that most editors are OK, but that certain Admins unfairly target certain editors, and the Admins should be sanctioned! -- Iantresman ( talk) 21:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean Warnings or Alerts? -- PBS ( talk) 14:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@ AGK: you wrote "Simply so we're both talking about the same thing" yes we are but I am opposed to logging alerts.

1. As many arbcom decisions contain the wording "Articles which relate to {topic}, broadly interpreted" who decides whether an article is or is not related to the decision?
2. As any editor at any time may edit an related article simply for example because they are fixing minor citation errors, putting in a link to a new article or whatever, if the list is is inclusive then over time it will have 100 or possibly 1,000 of name in it if it is exclusive then anyone one in the list will think that they have been singled out. Either way I think the list is bureaucratic and not helpful.

As I have said elsewhere administrative warnings are another matter because they are useful for other administrators when following up with administrative actions (and serves a similar function to the block log) -- PBS ( talk) 14:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A perfect example of the problem

In my very first use of the DS alert, the alerted editor came to my talk page to complain that the alert was "ominous", a "threat", a "warning", an "attempt to create a 'chilling effect'", "as if there might be consequences for disagreeing". [2] This is exactly the problem that I have been saying needs attention. It is not sufficient to say, "Oh let's just de-stigmatize alerts". This understanding cannot be uploaded to the minds of editors. However benign an alert looks to us (because it is actually benign), from the perspective of a newly-alerted editor it is entirely different.

Earlier I pointed to an ArbCom request in which the "alerts are threats" idea played a significant role. Indeed, the case begins, "This request for arbitration is to resolve recurring threats...". [3] See my response in #3 "Threats". [4]

Early use of the new DS alert-not-warning system portends disaster. Please don't blow off this problem. vzaak 03:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

From where I'm standing Vzaak the editor's response to your use of that template is understandable. You gave no explanation why and you used it after reverting them in a way that could be understand as a chilling effect. Also this template and review has yet to be implemented. It was a bit previous of you to use this template in the first place and secondly in the context of those edits you need to give the user a clue why you dropped that template. Templating without explanation is always (regardless of teh template) bad practice-- Cailil ^talk 11:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I was sanctioned on the basis of this so-called alert by involved admin who laterone used it to sanction me. [5] There is no controlling authority to discipline admins so whimsical attitude of admins has gone out of control. Abhi ( talk) 11:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, the system needs to be field-tested before it goes live. So far I've tweaked {{ ds/alert}} for clarity based on user feedback, [6] and found an apparently serious technical problem with unintentional re-alerts (above). [7] The system should be designed to work for naive users, not for experts already in the know. The template should be a sufficient explanation on its own, and current practice does not give extra explanations. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Feedback suggests that ds/alert needs to contain a prominent notice -- probably bolded -- to the effect of "this notice does not indicate misconduct".

The more fundamental problem of individuals interpreting alerts as threats remains unaddressed. Based on my experience, including but not limited to the evidence given above, no amount of disclaimers are sufficient to overcome the perception of warfare- and conspiracy-minded editors that topics under discretionary sanctions tend to attract. The actions of a user on "the other side" will be interpreted in that context, despite all niceties. Editors who must deal with the eccentric personalities often found in DS topics know what I'm talking about; uninvolved admins may not. The alert needs to be automatic, or at least mediated through a manually-triggered bot. vzaak 15:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside, for the moment, the DS itself, what you did was IMO extreme. You declared that Terence McKenna's theories were considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. I edited that to read "some members of the scientific community", since there is no organized scientific community with spokespersons that speak for its entirety. The post you placed on my talk page implied that I might be subject to sanctions relating to the articles on pseudoscience and fringe science, articles I had never edited, nor had I removed or altered your use of the word pseudoscience, just modified an IMO unsupported and unsupportable claim into a reasonable and likely one. Perhaps the DS is problematic, perhaps not, but I can't see how an editor can simply write "this is pseudoscience" in an article and tell any editor who edits anything even related to it that he might be subject to some kind of sanction. Your use of it was IMO, inappropriate. (I also have a problem with your placing a refutation after each idea of McKenna's in the article, rather than creating a "Criticism" section.) In my opinion this, and your battle on the Rupert Sheldrake article (in which I have not been involved, but which I have reviewed), smacks of a bit of a tendency to judge the content of a subject's work rather than feature the facts about the subject in an encyclopedic way. And having been the focus of two serial sock-puppeteers, Mattisse and Qworty, I resist the phrase "the perception of warfare- and conspiracy-minded editors". If I am quick to react, it is because I have been burned. Rosencomet ( talk) 17:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously this is not the place for content discussion, but the source literally says, "It is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community." [14]. Anyone is welcome to remove this comment and Rosencomet's comment. In any case, the above reaction is further evidence for the problem I have described. Adding a comment with a smiley face to the template will not make the problem go away. vzaak 18:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Since Alexandra Bruce, the author of the book you cited, offers absolutely no support for her flat statement "It is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community", we can only conclude that this is her opinion. As such, my edit is IMO appropriate. One might also add "according to film producer Alexandra Bruce" to the statement. She offers no poll, no study, no source claiming to represent "the scientific community". She simply says this is so. I am willing to accept that some members of that community believe this, if evidence is presented. She, being a film producer who graduated from Brown University with a BA in Semiotics, is NOT a representative of that community and has no business speaking for it. The other "source" you supplied was from the blog of an archaeologist who describes himself as "an opponent to pseudoscience and new-age" and McKenna as a "Prophet of nonsense", who makes NO statements about the opinion of the scientific community, just his own. Rosencomet ( talk) 14:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why this person continues with content-related arguments here, but the above shows the lack of understanding of WP:FRINGE (in this case WP:PARITY) commonly found in pseudoscience-related topics, and ultimately an underlying reason for the creation of discretionary sanctions. This battle-minded editor is now recruiting allies, continuing to say the DS notice means that he/she "might be in trouble", despite efforts to persuade him/her otherwise. This is ever more evidence that such editors cannot be convinced that a notice issued by someone they perceive as "on the other side" is meant without ill will. When added to the evidence already provided, we have a solid case that simply proclaiming that DS alerts are non-stigmatizing is not going to work. The disruption resulting from this one test case is expected to occur hundreds of times (or more) in similar fashion once the new system is adopted. The canary in the coal mine has died. This deserves a response. vzaak 21:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Logging (comments)

Draft text

• Added a provision about logged modified or overturned sanctions.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Since the old warnings have been replaced by non-accusatory alerts (and a good thing too), what is the purpose of requiring alerts to be logged? Previously it was useful to know that an editor had been warned about bad behavior, but now that purpose has gone away. Of course someone filing a case will still need to provide a diff proving that an alert has been issued. Sanctions, on the other hand, obviously should be logged. Zero ^talk 03:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest: "All sanctions must, and alerts may, be logged ...". Logging alerts facilitates processing AE threads later, but depending on circumstances editors may not want to do it.  Sandstein  17:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• It's probably best to keep it as a bright line as failure to alert is spelled out later. Maybe this can be reviewed again after it has been in operation for a while? The logging data can also be useful for deciding whether DS for a topic can be rescinded.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• The point of alerts in the first place is to avoid editors saying "but I didn't know there was a DS for that topic" after being sanctioned. Without alerts (or the current warning system), there's no viable way to tell an editor who really didn't know about the contentious topic area vs. an editor that is being disingenous after being disruptive in an attempt to avoid sanctions. Logging the alert is thus positive proof that the editor was indeed aware of the DS. — Darkwind ( talk) 08:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• The mention of edit notices here is unclear about what it means as it's the first mention in the document. Maybe it's an oversight from removing the other edit notices? In any case, I really don't see the point in logging the placing of an edit notice as it has no enforcement or notification role. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Logging alerts is good housekeeping. It has an enforcement role as people can't be sanctioned unless they're demonstrably aware of DS.   Roger Davies ^talk 10:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, logging alerts is good. My comment though relates to edit notices. "While failure to log an alert, an edit notice or a sanction, does not invalidate it" (emphasis added). That is the first mention of edit notices in this draft, and (unlike in the first draft) they are not evidence of awareness. I suggest just getting rid of the text I italicised (and the preceding comma). Thryduulf ( talk) 10:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
      • @ Roger Davies: it looks like you might have missed my above comment. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
        • • Apologies for not acknowledging, Thryduulf. It is on my list to incorporate,   Roger Davies ^talk 16:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Don't take it personally, they generally ignore my comments completely, especially when its something they don't want to hear. That's why I stopped taking the time to add suggestions or tell them about the problems, they just ignore them so anything more than a comment to raise awareness of said problem is just wasted time. The only reason I even bothered comment in this is because this review is a good idea generated by good intentions that is poorly written, will be poorly implemented, poorly supported and will cause more problems than it solves. Unless the Arbcom does something active to deal with abusive admins that abuse it, this review and associated policy change will fail because it gives the admins more flexibility to abuse the system. Kumioko ( talk) 15:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Consider omitting "... repeated failures to log may result in sanctions for the issuing editor or administrator." as rules creep. Seriously, the Arbitration Committee is going to take the time to vote on a motion for egregious misconduct of this sort? If not, who imposes the sanctions?  Sandstein  17:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not rules creep. Sooner or later someone will issue alerts pointedly or disruptively; we'd may as well anticipate the day. I don't see why the AE admins can't handle this kind of stuff themselves. ArbCom doesn't need to be involved in anything.   Roger Davies ^talk 10:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Sandstein it is rules creep and should be removed. -- PBS ( talk) 16:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• I don't find here a valid argument why alerts should be logged. Darkwind wrote "Logging the alert is thus positive proof that the editor was indeed aware" but it isn't anything of the sort; the editor is most unlikely to find a logged alert instead of the alert itself on its own talk page. Roger Davies also thinks that the logging makes the editor aware of the alert; it simply isn't true. The proof that an alert was issued is the diff of it; no other proof is necessary. It seems to me that logging alerts serves no useful purpose. Zero ^talk 14:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Take pity on the poor backlogged admins. The log is for their easy reference, so that they can readily verify procedures were followed prior to imposing sanctions. Also provides evidence that they acted properly if their exercising their admin authority is questioned. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone can issue an alert, but only administrators should do the logging. I see it as a useful interim step to warn a participant that their behavior has become enough of a concern that discretionary sanctions are being considered. Logging someone's name to a case page is generally seen as a very big deal, so shouldn't be done lightly, and should only be done by administrators. -- El on ka 15:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If DS only becomes authorized after this logging, then the logging would a de facto warning, thus invalidating this converation's assumption that by fiddling with the word "alert" we are really changing anything. Instead, a "warning for cause" from an admin (via logging) would still be required, and an "alert" from a regular editor like me would be optional. Seems a lot like what we do now to me. Check my contribs, I give regular-editor head's ups about ARBCC all the time. But I don't log it. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a sensible and rational view. However, if a notification is an actual warning, some would like them appealable. Historically though, admins have long had broad discretion is to give whatever warnings they consider necessary and, in this context, I'm not clear why DS-related warnings should be appealable when, say, 3RR or copyvio notifications aren't. I suspect that, as usual and despite ArbCom's best efforts, this will prove to be irreconciliable and ArbCom will get grief in perpetuity from whichever side feels it has lost the debate.   Roger Davies ^talk 14:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest bifurcating the logging section to treat alerts and sanctions differently. Also, I think "edit notices" have gone away so delete those references. Some possible text tweaks are

===Logging====

=====Alerts=====

Any editor may, at their option, log an alert in the motion authorising discretionary sanctions for the area of conflict. Such logging helps administrators who are considering imposing DS ascertain whether an editor has been given notice, but logging of alerts is not a prerequisite to discretionary sanctions.

=====Sanctions=====

All alerts and sanctions must be logged on the page specified for this purpose in the motion authorising discretionary sanctions for the area of conflict. Whenever sanctions are modified or overturned, the administrator amending the sanction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry. While failure to log an alert, an edit notice or a sanction, a sanction does not invalidate it, repeated failures to log may result in sanctions for the issuing editor or sanctioning administrator. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Though if it's entirely optional you can bet anyhthing you like that one side of a dispute will scrupulously log their opponents alerts but not their allies.   Roger Davies ^talk 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That benevolent tool known as a hammer can always be used as a weapon.... until it is simply place out of reach. If the "alert" is perfunctory, then let bots handle the issuance and logging. That way neither "side" can try to tweak someone in the nose via logging. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Bots can't handle all the notifications; it's too complex.   Roger Davies ^talk 19:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't speak wiki, but I do speak relational database. All we need is a table of page names that are associated with each ruling, and a table of user names associated with each "notice" section (plus date if you like). If it takes too many resources to do that in real time, just process each page name in the list of all page names to find the daily edits on that one page, and just alert the new names that pop up. If something so bad happens in less than 24 hrs that waiting for the bot is not an option, then people can still do it manually. I don't see what the big bot deal is. Can you enlighten? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Bots aren't really a practical option. Take Abortion for example. DS protect not only the main articles but also the spin-off ones, and intersectional ones.

So, firstly and obviously, all the articles in the category:Abortion are covered, as well as the articles on: abortion clinics, abortion practioners, prominent pro- and anti-Abortionists, researchers, scientists, writers, journalists, broadcasters, lawyers, litigants, popular culture items, relevant legislation by country, legislative history, and any of the sources for the preceding articles which themselves have articles (for example, books, learned journals, magazines, and the respective publishers and writers).

Secondly, there are then the articles with a significant intersection to the area of conflict and which are likely to include significant coverage of abortion. This broadly means articles in the following categories category:BioethicsBioethics, Methods of birth control, Medical ethics, Human pregnancy, Reproductive rights, Ethically disputed practices, Human reproduction, and Birth control.

Thirdly, then there are wiki-discussions about either the editors or the articles references on any number of pages (WP:COIN, WP:AFD, WP:AN, WP:ANI etc).

And this is all before we get to any unusual or novel intersections. Setting those up would be tricky, and as it would involve clear human intervention, is bound to attract criticism. ("You only include articles XYZ and XYY in order to make me and my mates sibject to DS.") Perhaps more worryingly, as a bot has no way of telling whether or not, especially in peripheral articles, the edit is covered by DS or not, the number of false positives will be very very high.

So again, does the solution you propose eclipse the perceived problem in terms of workload and disruption?   Roger Davies ^talk 21:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well sheesh, it doesn't have to be perfect to achieve the MAIN BOT GOAL: Cultivate a culture of "Your edits may be fine but did you know...." Just run the bot on the articles pre-flagged as being directly in the subject area. That will (a) save labor, (b) cover most of the eds in the subject area, (c) and give birth to that cultural attitude towards alerts/loggings. For all the other types of articles you mention, (A) a high percentage of eds will have also fiddled at one of the flagged articles so they will already be covered, and (B) all eds can still manually do the alert and logging to pick up the small amount of slack. Notice that this labor for the small amount of slack is spent doing the same things that we would have to do for everyone without the bot. So the bots save labor, get lots of speedy coverage without getting bored, bring about a cultural paradigm shift over the alert/loggings, and everyone can still manually pick up slack bots miss. There is so much UP side, and essentially zero down side (that I see anyway) the only reason that really makes sense to me for not doing this is if they alerts are not really perfunctory ("Your edits may be fine but did you know....) but instead imply some sort of wrongdoing. Since actions speak louder than words, I suggest the mechanism we use to carry out the alerg/logging will do most of the communicating about what it means, and the text we actually place in the alert or log won't really matter. Perfunctory alerts should be run mainly by bots, specifically to de-stigmatize the whole thing. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A bot simply can't identify whether an edit falls within the scope of a discretionary sanctions remedy. Until computers can perform general intelligent action, your proposal is so impractical that it seems like a non-starter. AGK [•] 23:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We're not communicating so let's use the Tea Party ruling as an example.

QUERY T or F, "Any edit, including very helpful edits, at Tea Party or Talk:Tea Party merit the issuance of an alert to an editor."

• If you said "false" then please specify the language in the draft text on which you rely.
• If you said "true", then is there any technical impediment to having the brainless bot issue alerts to every editor who appears on those pages, and whose name is not already on the log?

For this exercise, please confine your thinking only to edits at Tea Party or Talk:Tea Party. If we get past this question, I'll go on to illustrate the concept by discussing edits at Michele Bachmann. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No thank you. AGK [•] 11:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that is a nonstarter. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Could I comment on a few statements above? "The point of alerts in the first place is to avoid editors saying 'but I didn't know there was a DS for that topic' "—well yes, but a nicer and more practical way of putting it might that the purpose is to protect editors who edit a topic without knowing that it's subject to DS. Who wants casual visitors to an article caught up in sanctions through their not knowing?

  Roger Davies says: "Logging alerts is good housekeeping"—yes, but let's be specific: we certainly don't want to waste time alerting someone more than once for the same article (even the same cognate area?); and that might irritate gnoming editors mightily (25 alerts when they work through a category one afternoon?). So centralised logging seems to be a must, and I'm sure the talents here can work out a streamlined way for everyone to search it quickly.

  NewsAndEventsGuy: I understand your notion that a bot could further depersonalise the alert system, since no human would issue the alert. That would be a good thing; but I think it's not within our grasp at this stage to create a bot so sophisticated that it could exercise judgement about gnomes and other one-off visitors, and repeat visitors who edit substantively. Better to start the system with complete human oversight, including the question of which cognate articles should be included in a DS domain (there will be grey areas). Tony (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for your comments but we're not communicating. First please answer the T/F question in my comment immediately before your reply. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@ NewsAndEventsGuy: Having given this considerable thought, I've concluded that automatic alerting by bot is not a good idea. First, the premise is faulty because it's pointy and disruptive: let's issue everyone in sight an alert to prove to the handful who regard them as stigmatising that they're not stigmatising at all. Second, it will issue alerts on an industrial scale and the people who will receive most alerts will be wiki-gnomes and vandal fighters, who will get one for each topic they edit (currently 27). It's true we could fix the bot to exclude AWB edits, but then that defeats the purpose of universality. Third, it wouldn't catch the intersections, without producing huge numbers of false positives. Frankly, all in all, this simply isn't worth the considerable set up effort and the inevitable fall out, and is - as they say - the tail wagging the dog.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Answering your remarks...

(A)Re sentence starting "First" - you seem to be expressing opinion that follows from your other remarks, which I think were based on incorrect undestanding of the idea.

(B)Re sentence starting "Second" - False, because for each ARB ruling the bot would give a single alert to any editor. That functionality obviously requires some form of logging.

(C)Re sentence starting "Third".... False, because the bot would be told to monitor only those pages that are unambiguously 100% under a single ARB ruling's jurisdiction, and the bot would be blind to the "intersections".

Projecting the future, if we go to mere "alerts" what will happen is that regulars in the controversial pages will just alert everyone as soon as they show up. Given the penchant for human error, people will get re-alerted multiple times. For pages unambiguously 100% under a single ARB ruling, it's hard for me to see how having a bot would be any different, except it would be easier, facilitate the attitude that the alerts are not stigmatizing, and would reduce repetition in alerting eds. HOWEVER, I can let go of the "bot" idea if it will help this review along. It can always be proposed again later, in context of seeing how things are going after the revision is deployed. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: [C]. You misunderstand me, not vice versa. We have 27 topics under DS (ie 27 single Arb rulings). A busy vandal fighter or an active wiki-gnome could easily accummulate one alert for each topic over a few days. Anyhow, I'm grateful that you're happy to let go of this for now.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thereafter, they get none. A little bit of chaos is always the price of changing procedure. At most your vandal fighter gets a one-time receipt of up to 27 bot-generated alerts and then no more. Plus we could also provide an opt-in tool so any ed could register their user names in the log to prevent receipt of any bot-alerts. So I still do not understand why there is resistance, but that's fine - I can live with that for now.

Speaking of repeat alerts.... suppose five editors all decide to send an alert to me about ARB-xx after my first edit in that subject area. If there were a log, couldn't the template be told to abort delivery of all the alerts after the first alert? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Role of administrators (comments)

Draft text

• Various tweaks:

  Verb concordance. "Considers" > "consider". (per Bbb23)

  Added "acts when involved" to the "Questionable sanctions" section and changed its subheader to "Questionable administrator conduct".

  Added vanchor template to subheads.

  Tweaked the text about logging page restrictions, and added a bit about edit notices.

    Roger Davies ^talk 23:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  • In "Questionable administrator conduct", "Arbitration Committee" -> "Committee".-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• We now appear to have a situation where one editor can place a warning on another editor's page, immediately complain to a sympathetic admin, who can instantly issue a one year ban, with no discussion and no appeal. The "Community sanction noticeboard" worked in a similar fashion, except it featuring a discussion period, but it was abolished because it was unfair. There does not appear to be any due process, nor checks and balances. -- Iantresman ( talk) 00:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • That is incorrect on every level. AGK [•] 00:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Except that it could still happen, just with a bit more time in between, in theory (or my reading) a user can be alerted then the next enforcement action is a site ban, leaving them banned while they try to appeal from behind the ban and block. I agree that it is very unlikely to happen, but it could. Why a site ban rather than a one year block? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Is there really any difference? I mean, the main difference between a block and a ban is that a ban requires consensus to be lifted, just like an AE-block (although the requirement may be slightly different, in that if a banned editor appeal to AE, then only the opinions of uninvolved administrators count towards the determination of consensus); also, an AE-ban may not exceed one year in duration, so it's actually impossible for an editor to be indefinitely banned after an AE thread. Although I agree with Thryduulf that it's probably a good idea to require that remedies be proportionate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
        • @ Salvio giuliano: the main difference I see is use of the user talk page. If someone is banned they can't use their talk page to do anything other than appeal if they are blocked they still can use it to discuss other things with other people. Also the sigma attached to being banned for a year is much more so than being blocked for a year. For example, we have Wikipedia:List of banned users but not Wikipedia:List of blocked users. There is also the precedent of allowing one user to ban another which, at the moment, is impossible. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
          • The part about the possibility of editing one's talk page after being blocked/banned is actually controversial, at the moment. There are editors who believe that both blocked and banned editors should only be allowed to use their talk page to appeal their block; others disagree. I am not aware of anybody maintaining that blocked users can use their talk page to discuss whatever it is they want to discuss whereas banned ones can't (but it's entirely possible this has escaped my notice). So, really, the only difference is that a ban has more stigma attached to it, which is something I may agree with, but, to be entirely honest, isn't something I find particularly troubling. The end result is practically the same: the editor can't edit unless there is a consensus that he should be unblocked. So, if there are editors who feel really strongly about it, I'll not stand in the way (and will vote to change the wording), but, otherwise, this is a bit of a "meh" issue for me... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps add some text that remedies are required to be proportionate. That doesn't define what is and is not proportionate, but it is a requirement against which sanctions can be explicitly judged. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @ AGK, could you explain how it is incorrect at every level? Are you suggesting that editors don't warn people, and uninvolved administrators can't then just ban someone? -- Iantresman ( talk) 16:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    • @ Iantresman: It is incorrect that administrators can ban people for no reason (which you implied) and that sanctioned editors cannot appeal (which you stated). A number of other assertions you made were also not correct. Regards, AGK [•] 19:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• @ AGK Thank you for the clarification. It seems that an editor can alert another that an article is under DS. The alerted editor can then edit an article under DS to which the first editor takes umbrage, alerts an uninvolved admin who can immediately instigate a ban without further warning or discussion. The banned editor may even have missed the alert, and finds themselves banned without having put their side of the situation. ie. no due process, no checks and balances? -- Iantresman ( talk) 20:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• There are checks on the enforcement request, in the sense that administrators cannot impose sanctions for any conduct that is not disruptive. If they do, the sanctioned editor can then appeal to three different venues. If an editor fails to notice an alert and edits disruptively enough to then be sanctioned, that is nobody's fault but their own. The DS system has been used for years; "no checks and balances" has never been an issue. "I did not deserve this alert/sanction" sometimes is an issue, but the draft provides plenty of opportunity for them to make their case. AGK [•] 20:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• @ AGK Presumably the way to completely avoid disruptive editing is to discuss proposed edits in the talk pages, and on various noticeboards first? -- Iantresman ( talk) 22:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Sanctions must be logged" is redundant to the preceding section and can be omitted. As is "Administrators are expected to log page restrictions though failure to do so does not invalidate it", but restrictions could be mentioned above as a type of sanction to be logged. Besides, "is expected" is a "should" rule, which contradicts the "must" rule in the preceding section.  Sandstein  17:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• "Any duly notified editor may be sanctioned for any repeated or serious failure to meet Wikipedia's behavioural expectations" should be omitted because it is redundant to the preceding section "Behavioural expectations", and has nothing to do with the role of administrators.  Sandstein  17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• The punctuation in "Page restrictions" is inconsistent. Either commas or colons and semi-colons should be used after "may impose on any page relating to the area of conflict". AGK [•] 21:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• The whole Jclemens case request that is on WP:A/R/C right now brought something to mind: I would suggest that "regularly" be removed from the "Questionable administrator conduct" section. There's no reason to handicap ArbCom in this fashion; a single instance of extremely poor decision-making should not always be pushed aside simply because it was the first such occurrence. NW ( Talk) 02:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The "questionable Administrator conduct" section seems more likely to deter good conduct than bad. NuclearWarefare is correct that ArbCom needs to maintain flexibility. Overall, there are no positive standards: such as expecting administrators to be respectful, explain their decisions, communicate with other administrators, apply sober-minded judgement, and anything else. I mention these because DS is a place where adminship is a very big deal, especially given the degree to which an admins decisions are irreversible and have serious trust consequences in areas which already have a trust deficit. "Accountability" is an empty word without standards. -- Tznkai ( talk) 02:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A situation just came up on AE and I think a clarification in the new draft is in order. The wording of "any uninvolved administrator may impose warnings, admonishments, editing restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, site bans of up to one year in duration" suggests that, given the degree of power and discretion administrators have, the maximum length of any measure is one year. However the same provision also allows "and/or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" which could include durations longer than a year, or running indefinitely. Same goes for the standard enforcement mechanisms. Is this a feature, or a bug? If the 1 year is meant to be a hard cap, it should be written so.-- Tznkai ( talk) 21:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I now notice, too, that the wording of the provision "... warnings, admonishments, editing restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, site bans of up to one year in duration ..." should be reconsidered. Admonishments aren't sanctions (and I find them patronizing and insulting; they should be omitted), but blocks as the most common type of sanction aren't mentioned. Is it really the intent to limit e.g. topic bans to a duration of one year? Indefinite topic bans are now relatively common at AE, and haven't to my knowledge caused any particular problems. In general, I prefer sanctions that are not limited in time to sanctions that are, because timed sanctions encourage a punitive approach rather than a preventative one - a sanction should end when it is no longer needed (e.g. after a convincing appeal), not when an arbitrary amount of days has elapsed. I therefore recommend to edit the provision to mention blocks, omit admonishments, and remove the one-year limit. That would also resolve the ambiguity perceived by Tznkai.  Sandstein  21:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with that with a stronger appeal process, and/r weaker overturn protection and/or higher admin conduct standards or other devices to counteract the first and harshest mover incentives. Otherwise, there are no real constraints on a single administrator being punitive, or for sanctions to slide into severity without anyone even trying to do so.--22:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein wrote above 'I prefer sanctions that are not limited in time to sanctions that are'. I find that comment disturbing, as it runs counter to the entire Western system of justice. Indefinite sentences in the Western justice system are a rarity. Why should Wikipedia specialize in them? The same goes for sanctions 'broadly construed'. The entire Western justice system runs on sentences which are very strictly defined. It seems to me Wikipedia is going in the wrong direction on these two points, and that the premises should be re-examined. It's also very administratively time-consuming to deal with appeals on both these issues, and appeals arise much less frequently by definition when sanctions have time limits and when sanctions are not broadly construed. NinaGreen ( talk) 15:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nina Green, we are not operating a criminal justice system that issues punishments to evildoers. We are, if we must use legal analogies, operating a system of administrative justice that should result in measures tailored to prevent conflict that hinders work on the encyclopedia. I am guided by the principle of our policy WP:BLOCK that "blocks should not be punitive". Neither should other sanctions. They should be aimed at preventing conduct that is deemed unhelpful. And they should last exactly as long as they are needed for that purpose. This means that even a block for the most egregious misconduct should be lifted after a day if we receive credible assurances that the misconduct will not reoccur, but it also means that a sanction for very minor misconduct should last indefinitely if we must assume that the same conduct will be repeated if the sanction is lifted. There is one practical advantage to timed sanctions – they do not need to be actively reviewed to expire. This makes them suitable for first sanctions or very routine situations such as edit-warring, but every subsequent sanction should, in my opinion, require affirmative action to lift following discussion with the user at issue. For the purpose of this policy, setting a upper limit of one year may have the detrimental effect of inducing admins to think in terms of timed sanctions only and therefore in terms of punishment rather than prevention.  Sandstein  16:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, no justice system in the Western world, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, uses indefinite sentences or sentences 'broadly construed'. The essence of the Western justice system is that nothing is left to the 'interpretation' of those administering the sentences. Wikipedia has lost sight of that principle. And it's also important to keep in mind the point I have brought up several times, and which has never been answered (see this page and the earlier archived discussion), namely that the purpose of an arbitration is to clear the decks of 'troublemakers', and once those decks are cleared by the arbitration, there should be no troublemakers left, so why are discretionary sanctions then imposed on a topic? The only answer can be, 'Well, the arbitrators are anticipating trouble in the future from some as-yet-unidentified trouble-makers'. Again, the entire Western justice system is based on punishment of offenders. Sentences are never imposed in the likelihood that someone will offend in future. Wikipedia again runs counter to the principles of our Western justice system, and the outside world would find that peculiar, if not downright offensive, if it were aware of it. NinaGreen ( talk) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nina, Sandstein is entirely correct that we're not in the justice business here, and I'm afraid you're describing a conception of "Western justice" that does not mach up with reality or theory. If I can wander into some theories of justice for a moment, the distinction that Wikipedia makes between punishment and prevention is a little bit nonsensical, since we accept deterrence as prevention. What we really seem to mean is that our use of blocks is not retributive, but utilitarian. For that reason, I don't see why more than "a day" is anything but entirely arbitrary amount of time to declare blocks punitive, when the measure is actually "about as long as we think it'll take." The advantages to time limits are prophylactic and pragmatic: no administrator has an assigned beat, no bureaucracy exists to transfer responsibility, no structured hierarchy exists to funnel action into unified policy or control authorized agents. There are many, many ways that a sanctioned user can get lost in the shuffle, or simply get an unintended message of rejection and denunciation, despite any of our protestations otherwise. For all of these reasons I think it is better to have the onus on administrators to renew sanctions than otherwise, but there are other ways of addressing that concern.-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Tznkai wrote 'Nina, Sandstein is entirely correct that we're not in the justice business here'. That's absolutely wrong, both in terms of the reality of what happens on Wikipedia and in terms of how the outside world would see it. I know it's enormously difficult to change things once people have gone down a certain path and have come to see things in a certain way, and Wikipedia seems always at great pains to state that it's 'not in the justice business' and that arbitrations are not trials, and therefore no elementary rules of justice apply, but the reality is that an arbitration is a trial, whatever Wikipedians choose to call it, and the result of an arbitration is the passing of sentence, whatever Wikipedians choose to call it, and it all runs counter to the principles of the Western justice system. The 'fix' is a very simple one, and would greatly reduce the administrative workload on Wikipedia, so fixing the problem and bringing Wikipedia policies into line with the principles of the Western justice system would be a 'win-win' situation. NinaGreen ( talk) 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nina, to a certain degree, how the outside world looks at us is also not our business, but let me focus on the rest of what you have to say. The fix is incredibly difficult. You've been talking about "elementary rules of justice" as if they were a culturaly neutral, reasonably universal, easy to implement, self evident set of assumptions and practices. They are not. Actual justice systems are incredibly complex, imperfect, reliant on submerged cultural assumptions and habits, and perhaps most importantly, paid professionals. To seriously integrate justice into what we do would be catastrophic, for we would have all of the disadvantages of a justice system and absolutely none of the advantages and resources those systems bring to bare. Wikipedia is not a sovereign authority. It does not govern people. It is a website. Insofar as possible, expecting just conduct is good, expecting production of justice is a nightmare. I am on my very best days here, a wise-enough, lucky-enough man. I have never achieved the philosopher-king zen required to promulgate justice.-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Tznkai, if Wikipedia raises funds from the public, which it does, 'how the outside world looks at Wikipedia' is our business, both from the point of view of encouraging the public to donate to an institution which it considers to be properly run, and from the point of view of Wikipedia's integrity in requesting the public to donate. Re your second point: it would be entirely impractical (i.e. insane) to try to import the entire criminal justice procedure, or civil law procedure, or administrative law procedure into Wikipedia. But that's not at all what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting a few easy 'fixes' which would go a long way toward altering public perception of the Wikipedia arbitration and sanctions system if the public ever happens to have a look at it, and which would drastically reduce administrative workload on Wikipedia. What's wrong with that? It sounds like a win-win situation to me. NinaGreen ( talk) 17:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the general public knows or cares to know much about our inner workings. I am concerned with new editor recruitment and retention, but that I think is more of a problem of newbie biting and our arcane just complex enough to alienate and not strong enough to do anything useful sour spot of a bureaucracy sucking all of the fun and satisfaction out of a hobby. Implementing the so called simple fixes - of which I am not exactly sure you refer, would make that problem worse with no appreciable gain. Encouraging people to further think of themselves as wronged parties will just encourage editors to treat administrator decisions as battlegrounds to find justice, again, bringing us the difficulties of a court without the advantages. For practical reasons aforementioned, I think broad construction and indefinite sanction can bring trouble as well, but thinking in terms of justice, or worse, "Western justice" a frame that will lead rather quickly to error. The tl;dr is this: editors care about getting fair shake and good experience, and we should do our best to give them one, but implementing the due process from justice systems would make that problem worse not better.-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you admit you don't know what specific 'fixes' I'm speaking off, why go off on tangents about what you think I'm speaking of with statements such as 'Encouraging people to further think of themselves as wronged parties'? Who said any such thing? NinaGreen ( talk) 18:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll set out the specific 'fixes' in a new section below to clarify. NinaGreen ( talk) 20:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• My first problem here is that Iantresman is exactly right on what could and has happened in the past. I could list at least 3 admins off the top of my head who were desysopped or came close because of doing exactly that. I also have a problem with point one that refers to "Uninvolved admins". It has long been the case that admins acting on a case were not involved and even in cases where they clearly were, the general agreement was that they were admins and were trusted and thus were acting accordingly. I wholeheartedly disagree with that logic and have stated so repeatedly. Including this as a line is either pointless because it will never be enforced or it needs to be backed up someone such as the admin needs to refer to an uninvolved admin for agreement on the remedy. Which could also be abused...but would be better than the involved admin acting alone without any fear of reprisal. Kumioko ( talk) 14:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

[placeholder for draft v3 comments]   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content" Sounds like this would put administrators in the role of making content decisions, contrary to longstanding practice per WP:INVOLVED. NE Ent 21:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

What that refers to, NE Ent, is AE administrators enforcing content decisions that have been made by the community at ArbCom-instigated RFCs. The whole paragraph needs tightening up though: I'll look at it.   Roger Davies ^talk 01:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What relation between the misconduct and the area of conflict is needed?

An ongoing AE request raises a question about how the misconduct that gives rise to sanctions and the area of conflict need to be related. The request concerns incivilities by an editor, who regularly edits Eastern Europe-related articles, in an ANI thread that is not, per se, about the topic of Eastern Europe, but whose origins lie in the interpersonal conflicts that gave rise to (and/or resulted from) the arbitration case WP:EEML and related conflicts about Eastern Europe. Administrators have expressed different opinions about whether this case is within the scope of the DS authorization for the Eastern Europe topic area. I suggest that the Committee adopt one of the following wordings (or similar) to clarify this question:

• "Any duly notified editor may be sanctioned for any repeated or serious failure to meet Wikipedia's behavioural expectations with respect to edits or content related to the area of conflict", or
• "Any duly notified editor may be sanctioned for any repeated or serious failure to meet Wikipedia's behavioural expectations with respect to edits or content related to the area of conflict, or in the context of disputes among editors editing within the area of conflict".

My view is that the second option is preferable, because it would allow administrators to address disruption stemming from long-term interpersonal conflicts that have begun because of topic-related disputes, but have since begun to affect other areas of the project, such as (in this case) WP:RFA. If that is not the intention of the Committee, it would be better to clarify it.  Sandstein  15:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Sandstein: The draft already authorises sanctions on "editors editing within the area of conflict". Therefore, if an edit relates to the area of conflict, it can result in sanctions. Based on this, I'm not sure we need the additional words you propose. AGK [•] 15:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

By this logic, if I post something to Jimbo's webpage about say, Bangladesh, then someone could bring me to WP:AE under... WP:EasternEurope, simply because I also edit Eastern Europe related topics? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Add: Nota bene, the other editor concerned does NOT edit in Eastern European topics (which is what this was filed under). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You know, Volunteer Marek, while this is all very interesting and so on, this really is not the page for discussing (re-litigating?) the nitty-gritty of live or recent issues. So please don't go there. Fair enough?   Roger Davies ^talk 16:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My gut reactions was "omg how subjective"; If after an ARB ruling on a subject area, Editor A starts (or continues) to have problems with Editor B in other areas, the existing rules already allows either of them to ask for an extension of the original subject-area ruling to include a ban on editor interaction. Never having needed it, I can't cite that text, but it is my understanding that it already exists. If so simply following it erases any chance of subjectivity resulting in head-thunking for borderline actions done in good faith. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sandstein, I consider the interpretation of the remedy you adopted in the AE thread in question arbitrary and irrational. I also agree with AGK that policy is clear enough on this; anyway, if, to avoid similar flights of fancy, we want to make it clearer, then I propose "users making edits related to the area of conflict". Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Err, wait, what exactly do you mean? You disagree with Sandstein's proposal to apply the rules of ARBEE on Volunteer Marek, but you agree with AGK who is telling Sandstein that any related edit (not just any related article edit) is grounds for rule application? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing Salvio meant that if two users are discussing each other's edits to Eastern Europe on ANI then DS applies. However if the two users in question edit Eastern Europe and where notified about DS then got into an argument about the suitability of a DYK nomination which is not related to WP:ARBEE you would not be able to use DS under the current wording, but you (probably) would under Sandstein's second wording. For the record I think that's how it should work, DS shouldn't just apply to articles but to all namespaces. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

yuck That sounds like I could be sanctioned under DS (instead of ANI) if I get into a brawl over the ratio of chopped nuts at Chocolate chip cookie with some climate editor I've never heard of but who, like me, also knows about ARBCC. In my view these are ANI matters unless there is a violation of an editor interaction ruling. If our brawl goes off topic to argue climate, well sure ARBCC would apply. But if we're brawling about each other or content that is not climate related, DS should not apply just by the mere chance we both know about a ruling. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 07:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup. And not only that, but this kind of extension of discretionary sanctions would probably need serious community input. In fact I believe (though I'm going by memory here), but something like that HAS BEEN discussed before as a proposal and overwhelmingly rejected. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep I agree with both of you. My understanding of the new draft DS is that "If our brawl goes off topic to argue climate, well sure ARBCC would apply" ... no matter in which namespace the argument is taking place. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That's the way it works now I thought... e.g., that the abortion ruling covers abortion arguments unfolding on cookie article talkpages. We don't need any new text to apply DS in such instances because once abortion enters a cookie talk page, part of that page is related to abortion (broadly construed); If this sort of offtopic thing creeps into innocuous articles like Gingersnaps frequently then one could add something about offtopic conversations to the explanation of topic ban policy that has been suggested as a replacement for "broadly construed" NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm really reluctant to add any new language specifically for this. However, it is might be wise to explicitly prohibit exporting disputes from within the area of conflict elsewhere. Incidentally the topic ban text is not really a replacement for "broadly construed"; it simply provides a means of interpreting it. so much as providing an interpretion of what it means. Broadly construed is used far too widely to do otherwise.   Roger Davies ^talk 10:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

QUESTION: Is this thread concerned with anything other than off topic arguments at otherwise non-DS talk pages? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

So... the issue is the definition of the "area of conflict", then? If the arbitration area of conflict says "EE articles, broadly construed", does Sandstein get to broadly construe that or does he not? :) -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Reducing or overturning sanctions (comments)

Draft text

• The WP:AN section is now back to how it currently is. Much more to the point, it now occurs to me that the process for reducing or overturning sanctions is effectively the same as for an appeal. Easiest is probably to fold them into one. Thoughts?   Roger Davies ^talk 23:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You're probably tired of me saying this: "Arbitration Committee" -> "Committee".-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, the two sections should be combined.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The two items should start lowercase for consistency and because the items are sentence fragments, although item #2 muddies things by having a fragment followed by a complete sentence. You could cheat a bit by putting the sentence in parentheses. The first item should have a semi-colon before "or" for consistency with the other longer lists of this kind.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• I would prefer to see "the status quo prevails" (in Reducing, and below in Appeals) be phrased more clearly in the policy. In the past the community has had disagreements about whether, when consensus is unclear about something, "status quo" refers to "the state before the sanction (status quo ante)" or "the current state". Yes, you could argue that if you meant "status quo ante" you'd say that, but I rather think it would just be easier and cause less argument later on to say "if consensus is unclear, the sanction stands", which is what (I think?) you actually mean. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 01:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• As in the previous round, I recommend striking "(b) uninvolved editors at the Administrators' noticeboard" for practical reasons. In controversial cases attracting many commentators, figuring out who is uninvolved will be very difficult at best, and can provide fodder for endless wikilawyering. Besides, the provision doesn't tell us what "uninvolved" means in this context (unlike for administrators, we don't have a policy defining uninvolvedness for non-admins). Are people who edit in the same topic area with the same or the opposite point of view as the sanctioned editor uninvolved? Good luck figuring that out in the calm and collegial climate that we all know prevails in noticeboard discussions. This appeals provision is a recipe for paralysis and endless additional conflict.  Sandstein  17:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• And yes, the sections "Reducing or overturning sanctions" and "Appeals" should be merged. Also, you should consider merging this part of the rules with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Reversal of enforcement actions, because it makes little sense to have separate sets of rules for appealing DS and non-DS AE actions.  Sandstein  18:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• As I have commented elsewhere on this page, this provision combined with others creates a first and most severe mover problem. MBisanz had some choice words for the situation that I endorse again, 4 years later, "it is a bit like the sheriff of an old west town coming into the bar and throwing some loaded handguns on the table". Relying on the community or a clear consensus of AE administrators is dubious protection. Disputes for which discretionary sanctions are authorized are almost by definition areas with contentious edit warriors full of passion. Separately, even here, Wikipedia should err on the side of restricting less, not restricting more. The underlying conceit of nearly all of Wikipedia's norms and procedures, maybe the very structure itself, is that anyone can edit, because all mistakes and errors can be undone. This provision not only turns that assumption on its head, it flouts it by protecting a class of administrative action.-- Tznkai ( talk) 01:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Not sure if it should be in this section or another one, but there should be something somewhere to cover the situation of multiple administrators active in the same topic area. For example, if there are three administrators monitoring an article, and one administrator tells an editor, "Don't do that again or I'm imposing a sanction," but then a second administrator comes in and imposes a sanction without discussing it with the first admin (effectively undermining them). Another potential situation is where an administrator imposes an indefinite revert restriction on a certain section of the article, and then their attention turns to other areas of the project. If a second administrator then becomes more active in monitoring the article, how much authority do they have to deal with "old" sanctions from an administrator who hasn't been around for several months? A note to the previous admin's talkpage may be a good idea, but if there's no timely response, do they have to go through the step of a WP:AN appeal, or can they just proceed with their best judgment? Perhaps an addition to this section might be: "If the original enforcing administrator has been inactive on monitoring a particular dispute for 90 days or more, and is not responding in a timely manner on their talkpage, another active administrator may make reasonable adjustments to sanctions. If, however, the original administrator returns and disagrees, administrators are expected to engage in civil discussion (modeling the correct way to handle disputes) as to how to proceed." -- El on ka 15:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Restricting admin actions

Just to highlight a small but important proposed change, which needs discussion. Earlier versions have enabled admins to increase sanctions of their own volition but not to decrease them or overturn them. It strikes me that ALL admin intervention should be subject to the same rules. This would not prevent an admin increasing a sanction if fresh misconduct takes place but would prevent increasing a block unilaterally from say a week to a month without going through the process. Thoughts?   Roger Davies ^talk 09:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't all sanctions (block and topic bans) be based on a set escalating scale. ie. The first sanction is always 1 week, then the next infringement would be 2 weeks, then 1, 3, 6, months, and finally a year. There currently seems to be no rationale for the duration set by admins.

Shouldn't the same duration be applied to both blocks and topic bans? It seem inconsistent that a block of up to one year can be set, but topic bans can be indefinite. This would probably reduce the number of appeals. -- Iantresman ( talk) 11:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Iantresman, short answer 'no'. Long answer: the reason AC/DS is discretionary is because the action required may need to use the sysop's best judgement. If the system only used the normal 1 week 2 week, 1 month, 3 months, escalation cycle then it wouldn't be discretionary.

@Roger: I see where you're coming from but for clarity this applies to sysop escalating sanctions imposed by other admins - not their own. Or would you see the need for that with sysops increasing their own sanctions. Either way there is a layer of added bureaucracy here (but I see your point).

The problem here from my POV is that a second sysop's actions could legitimately be described as a new and individual sanction under AC/DS as opposed to a tweak/alteration of another admin's action, and requiring sysops to go to AE for approval (when in most cases it'd merely be a rubber stamping excercise) this would have the unintended consequence of wasting time-- Cailil ^talk 17:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Cailil. I would argue that the giving of a sanction is the discretionary bit, and doesn't have to apply to the duration. There is also a good argument that one admin shouldn't be judge, jury and executioner for hopefully obvious reasons. Since the option is available, I can't see why we wouldn't want to take it, in order to maximise transparency and accountability. -- Iantresman ( talk) 17:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: In which situation could this be a problem? I can imagine situations where a user is given a brief block, then continues ranting on their talk page or offwiki in the vein of "just you wait until the block expires, then I'll show these dirty Syldavians", which makes the blocking admin (or another admin) decide that a longer duration is preventatively needed. This wouldn't be a problem with a normal block, so why would it be in this context? And what does "going through the process" mean? There isn't much of a process for discretionary sanctions; they may be imposed without prior discussion.  Sandstein  18:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that situation would be covered under Roger's comment that it "would not prevent an admin increasing a sanction if fresh misconduct takes place". Only if one admin were to block for say 2 days then another comes along (and the blocked user hasn't done anything anywhere) and unilaterally makes it a one year ban under the protection of DS. So likewise I assume this means that if an admin semi-protects a page under DS then autoconfirmed accounts continue to disrupt that that admin is free to upgrade protection to full but would be unable to extend the semi or lower it to PC? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Sandstein: Generally speaking, in a situation where an administrator thought another administrator's enforcement decision too lenient, and unilaterally increased its severity. AGK [•] 11:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see that possibility, but that hasn't ever happened that I'm aware of. I don't think it's worth the instruction creep.  Sandstein  16:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm more or less with Cailil on this one. An administrator cannot overturn a sanction imposed by another admin acting under AE, but he can impose a new sanction if he sees fit - providing he does it based on misconduct by the sanctioned user since the original sanction and not on older evidence, because if he did the latter that could probably be considered a change of the original sanction which is not permitted under the existing rules. Gatoclass ( talk) 13:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That's exactly what I had in mind.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I can't see much of an objection to that. Gatoclass ( talk) 17:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If consensus is unclear

• The draft says "If consensus is unclear, the status quo prevails".

this is contrary to Wikipedia:Consensus which says in the " No consensus section"

• "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted."

If there is an uncivil editor who has sufficient acolytes to overturn administrative actions in areas where there are no arbcom sanctions, then if an arbcom that contains the wording "Articles which relate to {topic}, broadly interpreted" they can be sanctioned. Has the unforeseen consequences of two different procedures been discussed. For example under which process would the determination be made if a particular article falls within the scope of "broadly interpreted"? Who decides which process is the appropriate one to use? It also begs the question why are administrators given the benefit of the doubt when imposing sanctions but not when administrative actions taken over behaviour on non-sanctions pages? -- PBS ( talk) 13:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Appeals (comments)

Draft text

• I've brought the language for this more or less in line with the language for modifying or overturning,preparatory to merging the two sections,   Roger Davies ^talk 23:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There should be a colon after " three possible stages for appeal". I don't see the need for "and/or" in item #1; "or" would be fine. Each instance of "Arbitration Committee" should be changed to "Committee" and no wikilink.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Overall - Can we safely assume that this only applies to formal appeals? IOW, continued discussions are allowed on the admin's talk page? For example, if an admin sanctions an editor, it's permissible for an editor to say, "Hey, I think you make a mistake. How about X?" A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Regarding provision 3, why is a consensus of ArbCom members required when it doesn't take a consensus to impose the sanction? This is a whole sale departure from current practice, correct? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Regarding provision 3, this was already fixed by me and NuclearWarfare in the previous draft. [15] [16] How did it get back into the article? Were any other changes lost? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
        • @ Bbb23: This was already discussed [17] and fixed. [18] [19] with draft 1 and as you can see, I started a second discussion above. Can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Fixed? There was nothing broken. I don't agree with that change, so I was bold and took it out. It adds a lot of work and bureaucracy. Determining consensus is easy, whereas "a majority etc" requires a formal vote. Formal votes are usually unnecessary, and add delay and inconvenience. There is no point in a formal vote if the appeal doesn't have any support.   Roger Davies ^talk 20:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
            • @ Roger Davies: Wait a second, let me see if I have this straight. You disagree with the current policy and practice (AKA consensus). When this issue came up for discussion, you declined to participate in the discussion and allowed existing consensus to stand. [20] You decided to keep silent and quietly changed policy without bothering to mention it to anyone? Honestly, I don't know how you edit Wikipedia, Roger, but when I attempt to make contentious changes, I don't try to quietly make them and hope nobody notices. Instead, I try to be as open and transparent as possible. I don't try to hide my edits. In fact, I do the exact opposite: I start discussions on the talk page to bring attention to the change to make sure that everyone is on board. I'm really taken aback that you would attempt to make a major change to policy apparently without even bothering to mention it. In any case, you boldly changed existing policy. If you want to change consensus, the burden is on you to change that consensus. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
              • What consensus, AQFK? NW reverted you a couple of hours after you unilaterally made the original change. When I walked through the changes of that page one by one to arrive at the current draft, I reached the same conclusion as him.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Either as part 3 or subpart 2(c): "Approval of the Committee". (I.e. arbcom may authorize an admin to modify a sanction)

I still don't see the need for three separate stages of appeal - the appellant should have the choice of appealing either to AE, AN or ARBCOM, not both AE/AN and if that fails, to ARBCOM. It's highly unlikely that there are any facts worthy of further consideration after a user has already been sanctioned either by an admin or from an AE request, had his appeal turned down by the sanctioning admin, and then had a further appeal rejected at AE or AN. Moreoever, the provision for appeal first to AN and then ARBCOM raises the possibility of drama between the community and ARBCOM. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• • The way this is supposed to be, in my opinion, is that a sanctioned editor has the following three separate possibilities to appeal a sanction: in this order, a. to the imposing admin, b. either to AE or to AN and, finally, c. to ArbCom. It's not possible for an editor to first appeal a sanction before ArbCom and then to AE/AN and neither should it be possible to appeal to AN and then to AE or vice versa. Also, it's probably a good idea to say that an appeal to the community is not required to appeal to ArbCom, i.e. that a person can appeal directly to the committee, if he so wishes (which is technically known as an appeal per saltum), although, if we turn him down, he then can't go ask the community. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is how I understand the appeals process, though I probably failed to make that clear in my previous post. My concern is that allowing three separate appeals is excessive, and also that allowing someone to appeal first to AN and then if that fails to ARBCOM raises the possibility of wikidrama between the community and ARBCOM in any situation where ARBCOM decides to overturn the result of the AN appeal. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, an appeal to the admin who imposed the restriction in the first place is not mandatory, but it should be included: every admin has the authority to undo his own actions and if he realises he made an error, to allow him to self-revert is IMHO the best option (it's a quick and unbureaucratic process and it also gives the opportunity to the imposing admin to demonstrate he's ready to change his mind and recognise he may have been wrong, which is a good thing).

Also, the appeal to ArbCom is necessary as well, in that admins imposing discretionary sanctions are exercising a power we delegated them and, so, we need to retain the authority to ascertain if said power is being exercised in a reasonable manner.

This leaves the two alternative appeals to the community and, as far as those are concerned, I guess it's a matter of personal preference: in my opinion, the community is already marginalised when it comes to DS and I'd rather we did not entirely exclude them from DS. If they somehow mess up, ArbCom may, as an extrema ratio, overturn their decision (just as we, theoretically, may lift a sanction imposed by them), which, it's true, may cause drama. Then again, most of what ArbCom does lately seems to cause drama... And I don't think that the risk of creating drama is so high as to really justify disfranchising the community when DS are concerned... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that appellants should have the option of appealing to Arbcom, I just don't see why they should have a right to three appeals, firstly to the sanctioning admin, secondly to AN/AE, and thirdly to Arbcom - IMO, they should choose between AN, AE or Arbcom for their second appeal with no right to a third appeal if the second fails. All a third appeal is likely to achieve is to allow disruptive editors to create more wikidrama. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Gatoclass: the first reason why we should grant three different venues is that appeals are not always merely in the interest of the sanctioned party; they can also be in the interest of the entire project. Assume that an editor was rightly restricted for disruption; he appeals to AN and the only people who show up are those who agree with him or have long worked with him and they all support overturning the sanction. In this case, it would be appropriate for the imposing admin or for the editor who started the original AE thread to appeal the community's decision and ask that ArbCom set it aside. But, also, we have to bear in mind that, sometimes, an AN discussion can degenerate into a mob and in that situation as well ArbCom needs to intervene to make sure that the appellant is treated fairly.

I agree that ArbCom need to take into consideration the fact that the community has already expressed an opinion and should be careful to only revert it when fairness demands it, but it still necessary IMHO to provide for such an eventuality. After all, ArbCom has the power to speedily decline to hear a case... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't really see why users should be permitted to appeal to AN at all - IMO, they should be given a choice between AE and Arbcom and that's it. But, I've had my say on this and see no point in repeating myself, so I'll drop the matter now. Thankyou for taking the time to respond. Gatoclass ( talk) 12:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Appeals do not seem proportionate, in that one person can ban an editor for a year, but you have to jump through hoops to appeal. -- Iantresman ( talk) 16:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• And the sanctioning admin is expected to participate in this hoop-jumping by explaining their actions in public. That's a deterrent against frivolous or thoughtless sanctions, apart from the possibility of being sanctioned for such.  Sandstein  18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• A process which the banned editor is not part of. What form of justice excludes the condemned from taking part in their own defence? The principal of Habeas corpus is an important safeguard. -- Iantresman ( talk) 20:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian, while much of what you say is technically true, it does not happen in practice. Part of that is because of the faith and trust given to admins to not be... Well, dicks. I don't think you will find an AE report where the admins didn't at least give the accused a right of responce. As for the solo rogue admin handing out bans, it is rare for an admin to not wait for a second admin opinion before acting. Usually even then it is because so few admins volunteer for the AE hassle. About the only one I can think of that comes close to the cowboy law you describe is Marshal20 being blocked for a month by Sandstien. Even that was overturned, by Sandstien, after a civil discussion on his talk page... Not some Kafkaesque appeal maze. I believe that your concerns, that I admit are technically true, are more alarmist than prudent. 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 23:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only go by my own DS case, where I feel this was not the case, which was applied to an article that was not under DS, and an article I was not even editing, and following to the letter, recommendations to "adopt Wikipedia’s communal approaches". This is why I'm trying to get clarification, and checks and balances.-- Iantresman ( talk) 00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the wording of discretionary sanctions could use some improvement with regard to scope; many DS cases refer to articles covered by the topic area rather than edits. IMO it should be made clearer that any pertaining to the topic area, whether on a related page or not, comes under the scope of DS. The existing wording has caused confusion in the past and will probably continue to do so until the problem is addressed. Gatoclass ( talk) 11:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That does indeed speak volumes about your motivation. Perhaps you should look into how other cases were handled from a less intimate view before tarring them all with the same brush. 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 20:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

My motivation is to make sure that no-one else goes through the same thing. It has no bearing on my case which has been and gone. -- Iantresman ( talk) 22:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• "is no longer an administrator and/or has relinquished the tools" means the same thing, does it not?  Sandstein  18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The wording does seem unnecessary—omit "and/or has relinquished the tools". Johnuniq ( talk) 06:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I think this is intended to address cases where the admin has voluntarily given up their tools not under a cloud. In the past, people in the circumstance of "not holding any bits, but could have them back with no trouble if they asked" have been seen to have a confused sort of "still basically an admin, just no buttons" status. So I would guess Arbcom is trying to make sure that people in that situation are covered under this wording even according to people who view them as still-admins. Possibly a better way to do this would be to say "does not currently have administrator tools" or something, which would encompass both people who have had their bits pulled and people who have given them up, temporarily or otherwise? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 15:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• The introduction "There are three possible stages for appeal" may cause confusion. Either mandate that an editor must use option 1 before 2, and 2 before 3, or change "stages" to "options". Clearly options 1 and 2 should be used before 3—perhaps say something like "There are three options for an appeal which should occur in the following order". Johnuniq ( talk) 06:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• AQFK has changed "where a consensus of arbitrators is required to overturn the decision" to "where a majority of active, non-recused of arbitrators is required to overturn the decision". Why? Is there a serious suggestion that three rogue arbs may arrange to hold a quick discussion and declare that User:VeryBadEditor is unbanned while the good arbs are asleep? There is no formal vote in options 1 or 2, so why does option 3 need one? Johnuniq ( talk) 06:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• This a bit of a technical point but given that the processes for appeal at AN are radically different from AE has closure of such AN appeals been thought through? For instance if at AN an appeal is granted by uninvolved editors and a sysop enacts that, but on review ArbCom determines that that action/appeal breached policy, well then who is accountable - the sysop who enacts consensus at AN or the !voters at AN?
  And there again if appeals are "granted" improperly at AN but no sysop will enact them - the the system implodes. For clarity we know that if an improper decision is made at AE by a sysop then that sysop carries the can.
  I mentioned this at the last draft, but it bears repetition, unless there is some level of structure & accountability at AN for editors granting appeals, comparable to that of sysops at AE, then the AN appeal system are in a limbo. As Sandstein points out above the accountability of sysops under AC/DS keeps things in order. If we eliminate accountability we open up a can of worms. And ultimately the person who suffers from that limbic state is the appellant. We also run the risk of facilitating "admin shopping".
  To be clear I'm not arguing against AN appeals I'm just suggesting we formalize it-- Cailil ^talk 13:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, non-admins should not close anything requiring the use of tools, which means that IMHO a non-admin may decline an appeal (although he should only do so when it's entirely uncontroversial), but should never grant one. I also add that, as far as I'm concerned, an admin acting in good faith should not be sanctioned even if ArbCom later determines that he was wrong in his determination of consensus and, so, decides to overturn his decision... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• DS, under these guidelines, could result in an editor either being blocked or site banned for up to a year. Should some guidance be added for this, i.e., a blocked user may post an appeal on their talk page and request that someone copy it to the appropriate venue, and a site banned user should email BASC? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. Though technically arbitration/AE appeals go to the full committee, not BASC (which only handles appeals of community sanctions).   Roger Davies ^talk 10:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Appeals (grounds)

Reviewing this a bit more ... Given the volume of appeals, their sometimes directionless nature, and the desirability of reducing the committee's footprint, it would probably be a good idea to try to focus minds. Rather than just rehearing the whole thing again (which is what tends to happen), it might be better to have specific grounds. I suggest:

1. There was no actionable misconduct, or;
2. The sanction was not a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion.

The first covers situations where there was either (i) no misconduct at all or (ii) the misconduct was of such a minor or inconsequential nature that any sanction is excessive. The second covers administrative over-reaction or heavy-handedness. Thoughts?   Roger Davies ^talk 15:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these are the possible grounds of appeal, and that it would be beneficial to request that appellants discuss them. However, that in and of itself is not likely to reduce the volume of appeals. To reduce the strain on the whole Committee, you could direct that appeals are heard by a subcommittee only.  Sandstein  16:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm against limiting the cases where an editor may appeal. It's always impossible to anticipate all cases where we may find it necessary to intervene and binding our own hands in advance is always a bad idea. Not to mention that, in my opinion, the two grounds indicated here are so vague that they will not serve the purpose of limiting the number of appeals. Anyway, if we need to explicitly list the grounds of appeals we will accept, I think we should include:

• a. lack of competence on the part of the person who imposed the sanction (i.e. a sanction imposed by a non-admin or by a person who has relinquished the tools and hasn't requested them back),
• b. unreasonable exercise of administrative discretion (which includes the absence of actionable conduct, considering the presence of disruption is the logical prius which makes it possible for an admin to impose a sanction), and
• c. presence of formal defects (for instance, the sanctioned editor was not aware of the existence of discretionary sanctions).

While we're discussing this, I'd also add among the formal requirements that the sanctioned editor should generally have been given a reasonable opportunity to make a statement before being restricted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Salvio, some passing thoughts: Your (b) seems to be the same as Roger's (2) ("not a reasonable exercise of discretion"). Your (c) seems to be the same as Roger's (1) ("no actionable misconduct"; the draft elsewhere defines misconduct as actionable only after the subject has been duly alerted). Your (a) is a good point. AGK [•] 12:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

They are similar, but, in my opinion, there is a small logical difference: I basically lump Roger's two grounds together, saying that, by definition, imposing a sanction in the absence of actionable misconduct is a form of abuse of discretion. A different case is the one where the editor in question has actually misbehaved, but was never warned that his actions could lead to discretionary sanctions. I see this as a different case, because, in this case, a sanction might be reasonable, but it cannot be imposed due to formal requirements.

The difference, the way I see it, is that, in cases under b., if another editor had behaved in the very same way after receiving an alert, a hypothetical sanction would still have been inappropriate; in cases under c., on the other hand, the sanction would have been ok.

Then again, if we have defined as "actionable" only that misconduct which has occurred after an alert, this case ends up included under b., but, in my opinion, c. should still be included for those cases where particular formal requirements are present and in the event we were to include the need to give the editor in question the chance of making a statement before being sanctioned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO adding a valid grounds for appeal section would not be practical and would just add to instruction creep. Also, I'm concerned that the grounds suggested above necessitate fault finding with the sanctioning admin, which will be likely not only to discourage admin participation at AE, but also to discourage admin participation in appeals. The existing appeals process gives adjudicators plenty of flexibility, either to reconsider the facts altogether, to dismiss the appeal outright, or do anything in between, and to do so entirely on a "no fault" basis if they so choose, which doesn't seem like such a bad approach to me. Gatoclass ( talk) 13:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that it would be better not to have specific ground for appeals, I fear that all appeals entail our second-guessing an admin. Even if we have never formalised it, an appeal is generally accepted only when the imposing admin abused his discretion, so I'm not really sure spelling it out clearly would make much difference. This is different, of course, from the cases where we find that the sanction as originally imposed was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion, but now is no longer necessary (which is, technically, not an appeal, though the end result is basically identical)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't know about that. What I do know is that it's currently possible to change or undo a sanction at appeal with no suggestion of "abuse" by the original administrator, and I'd like to keep it that way. Gatoclass ( talk) 13:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass here, to a point. AE should not be about micromanaging or tweaking sanctions (I think it was Tim Canens or Tarc that made this point at AE a number of times in 2011). Either the sanction is justified or not. The quibbles over "I think it should be 3 months" vs "it should be 3 weeks" are not fruitful. However, if an active consensus at AE decides through an appeal that a sanction should be modified, for what ever reason (demonstrated reform on the part of the appellate, a decision to bring the sanction on User A into line with User B and C, or simply if AGF is being applied), bureaucracy should not get in the way. This reform process has gone a long way to remove legalistic thinking around alerts/warnings it would be a shame if this was forgotten here when such progress has been made. Basing appeals solely on sysop misconduct doesn't help anyone. It'll create a cadre of ppl crying admin abuse even more than they do already (because they'll have to to get their AE sanction overturned) and fundamentally it fails to AGF.

Fundamentally I'm asking why are these grounds necessary? Since we're dealing with discretion perhaps a paragraph on "AE is not for micromanaging other admins actions." There needs to be a balance between allowing for a new consensus to form vis-a-vis a sanction and not tweaking actions unless there is a real need (due to mistake or misconduct)-- Cailil ^talk 13:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The test applied to appeals was not always "Is this sanction a fair exercise of administrator discretion?", though that does seem the best one to apply. I think it was Sandstein that introduced this line of thinking, but I'm not sure. AGK [•] 11:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A concrete example might be helpful here, and reading this discussion calls one to mind. At this request, which was granted, there was no contention that the sanction was inappropriate or unjustifiable (indeed, the sanctioned editor acknowledged that it was). Rather, they were just asking for the scope of the restriction to be reduced, since it included some portions that were irrelevant to their case and the areas they had behavior problems in. The appeal was granted, but that was not any finding of misconduct or wrongdoing on the sanctioning admin's part, it was just a reasonable request that there was no harm in granting. This restriction on the scope of appeals to a finding of wrongdoing in the original sanction would also essentially remove the latitude to impose indefinite bans that are not meant to be permanent, but are intended to last until the editor reforms his or her behavior and can successfully demonstrate that in an appeal, rather than just allowing them to wait it out. The appeals section already contains provisions that a frivolous or groundless appeal can result in a restriction from filing another appeal for up to six months, and I think that's sufficient to deter filing an appeal just to throw things at the wall. I don't see any reason to restrict editors to come back and say "I've abided by my restrictions for a year, I realize I was behaving in a way I shouldn't have, and haven't had any problems while editing elsewhere", and I think those are valid grounds on which to appeal. This proposal is well-intentioned, but I think it could have significant unintended consequences. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, technically, that's not an appeal: by its very nature, an appeal requires a sanctioned editor to question the validity of the restriction he is under. If an editor says "I accept that the sanction was reasonable then, but in my opinion it's no longer needed now", that's not an appeal and should be treated differently, meaning that we should not just examine whether the original sanction was a fair exercise of admin discretion, but rather whether or not it is still necessary, but, as I said, these are two different concepts. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, to a point. Having seen the way this discussion has gone, I am not convinced that we need to specify grounds for appeal (or rather it seems that the disadvantages of doing so outweigh the advantages). As people will always talk about appeals when they mean reconsideration or clemency, easiest is probably to define appeal as including any request for reconsideration of the decision. Which has the advantage of simplicity.   Roger Davies ^talk 12:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on the language there, I'm not sure that's the definition of "appeal" that's intended. Why would we limit the future restrictions to six months in that case? If "appeal" only means an assertion that a sanction is groundless, and the appeals process determines that in fact there were legitimate grounds for it, future "appeals" should be barred in all cases and indefinitely. A sanction which was applied for valid reasons won't become invalid six months from now. Currently, however, the term "appeal" means a request to have one's restrictions lifted for any reason, whether on the grounds that they were invalid to begin with or that they were valid but are no longer needed. As this is already the wide understanding of "appeal", I think defining it more narrowly would be unnecessarily confusing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added a definition of Appeal that is really broad, to make it clear that for our purposes the DS meaning is much wider than the legal one.   Roger Davies ^talk 16:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Involvedness of admins who have previously expressed an opinion about the sanction

In a recent appeal at WP:AE, two editors have expressed the opinion that an administrator who supported (or, presumably, opposed?) a sanction in the discussion about the enforcement request that resulted in the sanction should not be considered uninvolved in the discussion about a later appeal. I think that's pretty clearly incorrect: Per WP:INVOLVED, interactions with others in a purely administrative capacity do not constitute involvement. That applies to discussions about whether or not sanctions should be imposed, because such discussions are about the exercise of administrative functions. Nonetheless, in view of the opinions to the contrary, this should perhaps be clarified in the rules (as should the rather more vexing question of what an "involved editor" is). If administrators may discuss only either sanction proposals or later appeals, then both enforcement requests and appeals will tend to attract even fewer comments from administrators than they do now. In the interest of a well-functioning sanctions and appeals system, that is not desirable.  Sandstein  19:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I tend to agree. AGK [•] 21:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• As it happens, I agree with those two editors (in my opinion, an appeal presupposes a new set of eyes, i.e. people who have not examined the case yet and who have not yet made up their minds, so allowing administrators who have already voiced their opinion during the original discussion to review the appeal for me basically contradicts the very idea of appeal); anyway, the last time we discussed this with my colleagues, I was the only one holding this opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• In principle, I agree that this would indeed the better way to go about appeals, and I'd probably support it if there were consistently more administrators working at WP:AE. But it does not really reflect policy or practice (we don't, for example, exclude from WP:DRV editors who have already commented in the prior AfD). And as things are, it is not likely to produce uncontested, predictable results. If admins who comment about requests are excluded from appeals we run the chance of low-quality sanctions (nobody comments on requests and enforcing admins make errors that could have been avoided through prior discussion), or low-quality appeals (nobody comments on an appeal and it fails by default, or it is granted or rejected by a "consensus" of one or two admins). The problem of an "echo chamber" of a few admins all confirming on appeal what they already agreed on the first time around can be avoided by the appellant addressing their appeal to the Committee or to WP:AN, as provided for by this proposal.  Sandstein  22:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another possibility is to have community-based appeals forum. This could be separate from AN/I and AE. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please, no more drama forums. No flawless system of governance has existed anywhere at anytime, and Wikipedia will never have a perfect administrative system where everyone is happy. If three or four respected editors raise a concern about a particular case at WP:AN, they are likely to get a reasonable hearing, and that is all that is required for exceptional cases. I have disagreed with the outcome of some AE cases, but in the end its purpose is to reduce drama, not to guarantee justice with unanimous agreement. Re "involved": As Sandstein says, it would be nice if completely fresh admins were available for appeals, but they are not. Further, many AE cases require some familiarity with the background in order to understand the issue, and that rules out most admins. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• How about creating a new role for editors willing to hear AE appeals? To gain such a role, editors would have to go through a similar process that admins do. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• @ Salvio giuliano:, was last time with AC 2013, or AC 2014? NE Ent 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• The 2013 committee. AGK [•] 11:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you then have a situation where the same group of admins who favored a sanction can repeatedly reject it without any fresh faces even getting a chance to review it or can simply block consensus. Standard practice at AE has been for admins involved in imposing a sanction, whether the admin of record or merely one of those who supported the sanctions, to be considered involved regarding an appeal. At any time you have at least a dozen admins regularly contributing at AE. If a case is decided by four admins and three are free to repeatedly reject any appeal or block any consensus then the appeal process might as well go through ArbCom or the community at large. Discretionary sanctions are a lower tier of sanctions than arbitration and community sanctions. The appeal process should be less difficult.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of that being the standard practice at AE. To me, it's clear that the admin who decided to impose the sanction should not help decide the appeal, but all other admins who may have commented about it do not "own" the sanction. Because DS are imposed by decision of an indiviual admin, rather than by consensus, the other admins are not themselves responsible for the sanction and, as such, are not too involved to review it on appeal. Deciding otherwise would also open up immense new wikilawyering opportunities: How about an admin who, in a discussion, expresses weak support for a one-week block, but isn't convinced that a topic ban is needed – and another admin then imposes a two-week block and a topic ban? Does that make the first admin involved? Discussing these and similar issues in each and every case would add yet another layer of complexity and delay to appeals.  Sandstein  12:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin who voiced support for a sanction imposed during in an AN/ANI discussion be acceptable as someone to close any appeal of said sanction? Come on, this is basic. I would say that goes for opposition as well. An admin who argued against a sanction should not comment as an uninvolved admin either. Editors formally appealing sanctions that were not imposed by ArbCom or the community are expecting an independent review and that is what they should get. To have the whole matter decided by the people who decided on the original case denies them the opportunity of an independent review.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not getting the context here -- is this discussion about a sanction being imposed following discussion at WP:AE being appealed at WP:AE? NE Ent 12:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Currently there is an appeal at AE where Sandstein weighed in as "uninvolved" and it seems now another admin who had taken part in the original discussion has taken his lead.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let's take a step back for a minute. Presumably, the whole point of the discretionary sanctions/AE approach is to enable admins to more efficiently and effectively handle disruption in problem areas. By creating a bunch of novel procedural hoops and wickets—which don't exist elsewhere on Wikipedia—we've actually made the AE process more cumbersome than standard administrative processes. In our quest to create a fully equipped virtual legal system (without the necessary personnel or support), we're undercutting the whole point of discretionary sanctions and Arb Enforcement.

  Again: discretionary sanctions are intended to streamline administrative handling of problem areas, but instead they immensely complicate things. Making matters worse, these excessively litigious technicalities provide positive feedback to disruptive editors at AE, many of whom have been sanctioned precisely because of their efforts to exploit technicalities and game the system. Personally, if this is where things are headed, I intend to cease participating in AE/discretionary sanctions. I'll simply apply whatever steps are appropriate as standard administrative actions, and they can stand or fall as such, with significantly fewer avenues for vexatious wikilawyering. MastCell  ^Talk 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• As a person who is normally quite at ease with complicated legalistic ways to go about things... I agree with the above. One should not forget that discretionary sanctions were originally intended as a fast-track procedure, and yet every year seems to bring more complications and venues for delay and appeal. (Of course, the general trend towards instruction creep is by far not limited to this area.)  Sandstein  17:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• I would hope the purpose of discretionary sanctions would be to improve the encyclopedia. The easiest "streamlining" would be to allow any admin to ban any editor at will. We'd have no disruption in no time. Actually I've queried AE "talk" page for background info on history / purpose, in case any knowledgeable readers would like to share the wealth. NE Ent 02:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the purpose of discretionary sanctions is to improve the encyclopedia. Specifically, they improve the encyclopedia by making it easier to deal with areas that are chronically plagued by poor editorial behavior. At least, that's the intent. MastCell  ^Talk 05:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The last two comments illustrate the point I've made before. Nothing this complicated, legalistic and time-consuming can possibly be a good idea for Wikipedia. There is a better way. Get rid of discretionary sanctions entirely, and institute page blocks in areas where editing becomes unduly contentious. It's fast, efficient, effective, not legalistic, saves administrative time, and generally makes everyone happier because there is no feeling of individual 'injustice' when a page is blocked -- the feeling of 'injustice' in that case hits all editors equally, and essentially doesn't hurt them at all. A few days or weeks in which a particular page can't be edited doesn't ultimately hurt anyone. Most of the pages in question already say all that needs to be said, and what's going on is just POV-pushing. A few days or weeks of interruption of POV-pushing isn't a bad thing. NinaGreen ( talk) 17:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I should also add that the foregoing suggestion would free up administrator time, which could profitably be used in mediating the contentious issues which arise on a daily basis and result in the loss of good Wikipedia editors and which have nothing to do with DS issues. NinaGreen ( talk) 17:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the "page blocks" solution is it encourages edit warring to attempt to make sure that the "right version" is the one on which the block is imposed. Rather than helping to solve disputes it is like pouring petrol onto a fire. One then has the situation were both sides resolve nothing and just wait until the unblock to impose their preferred version. Removing those who are the most intransigent over content tends to allow the rest to work towards a compromise. Some of these issues are very complicated but a simple one for disinterested editor to understand easily is the Liancourt Rocks issue, where at the last requested move we had Korean newspapers encouraging their readers to sign up to Wikipedia and express their opinions. If it likely that a page block would work for an issue such as this? -- PBS ( talk) 13:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• @ MastCell. My direct experience with WP:AC/DS, suggests that "streamline" means "taking shortcuts", "not having to present the evidence", "not having to follow the procedures". As a result, there is little due diligence and little due process. This is further compounded by some of my basic questions regarding WP:AC/DS, still remaining unanswered. I am all for streamlining and much appreciate all the hard work put in by Roger Davies, but in my opinion, all the extra work demonstrates that the process if flawed. I have many suggestions to improve the current system, making it quicker, fairer, and requiring less attention from Arbitrators, and requires no additional rules, regulations or special sanctions. -- Iantresman ( talk) 19:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• @ MastCell(2). I agree with you, "standard administrative actions" should be sufficient. The reason they don't work is because some admins don't under the process, don't understand evidence, and don't know how to investigate primary sources (of evidence). A lot of them are also biased, and apply double standards to different editors depending on what side of the fence they are editing on. I could provide hard evidence (diffs) supporting every single allegation here, but as is usual, they will be ignored (another problem with the system). If dispute resolution is not working properly, I vote we fix it, rather than bring in military rule. -- Iantresman ( talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • • @ MastCell I entirely agree with Iantresman. Some admins have little or no grasp of what evidence is, and some seem to me to have an understanding of the word "disruption" which amounts almost to "disagreeing too often with users I respect". While I agree with Iantresman that standard administrative actions should be enough, no registered user here should have to suffer the imposition of severe penalties (I am thinking of an indefinite block, or a long or indefinite topic ban; the meaning of "severe" would need to be defined) by an admin who has little grasp of how to assess the evidence of whether there has been disruption. In the English criminal courts, magistrates give summary justice, but they can only impose short sentences, while only a higher court, sitting with a jury, can decide cases which call for longer sentences. In the same way, I would give all admins here the power to administer short blocks and lesser topic bans, but have a cadre of more judicious admins (or they might have another title and include non-admins) who would take decisions on serious allegations. In any event, whatever system we have here, there needs to be some kind of appeal available against heavy penalties. I find it self-evidently flawed for an appeal to be decided by one or more people who were involved in the case at an earlier stage. Goodness only knows how that can be seen as fair. Moonraker ( talk) 03:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
      • @ Moonraker: I understand what you're saying. Really, I do, and I think your concerns are legitimate. Do you understand my point? We don't have the resources to create the sort of complex administrative and judicial structure proposed here. We don't even have the resources to provide consistent basic oversight of our most problematic and high-profile topics. We have to find a way to work with what we have, and use it to build a better encyclopedia.

        As a separate point, if we create a system which rewards endless disputation and litigation, then we'll attract and retain people who get off on endless disputation (and we'll lose people who just want to write an encyclopedia and who are put off by endless rounds of technicality-driven litigation). In fact, this is exactly what's happened over time. MastCell  ^Talk 17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

        • @ MastCell I think WP:AC/DS is an example of "the sort of complex administrative and judicial structure proposed here". Regular dispute resolution and admin powers are sufficient, if they are used correctly, but in my opinion, are often used improperly. I don't think there is a need for more resources, I think many editors need to a better understanding and clarification of policy.

I still find personal attacks used frequently, and as an argument against an editor. It is often easy to identify, but editors are rarely criticised for it. I am currently witnessing an editor being banned for being a " single purpose account", despite this not being a sanction-able offence, and no evidence of poor behavior being offered. I myself was banned from an article using WP:AC/DS, that wasn't even under discretionary sanctions, and which I wasn't even editing, having chosen to discuss the matter first. The system is broken, and I don't think WP:AC/DS is the way to solve it.-- Iantresman ( talk) 22:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• In principle, an AE thread isn't even required for discretionary sanctions to be imposed. An admin who saw an editor violating a discretionary sanctions remedy could unilaterally and immediately sanction that editor, and provided that there was indeed such misconduct, would have done nothing wrong. AE is a way to bring the matter to the attention of admins and allow for discussion of areas that may be more grey, but ultimately, the admin who applies the sanction "owns" it and is solely responsible for doing so. In any case, though, we've always held that interaction with an editor or area in a purely administrative capacity is not impermissible admin involvement for purposes of future issues involving the same thing. Discussing a possible sanction or remedy is pure administrative involvement, and so it is not a bar to the admin participating in future discussions as well. And all that aside, if the editor still feels wrongdoing has occurred, they may make a final appeal directly to ArbCom. Discretionary sanctions are meant to be a way that editors who are misbehaving in sensitive areas can quickly be stopped from doing so. There is still a multi-layer appeals process in case someone feels a genuinely wrong decision has been taken. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• What you are doing is wikilawyering. All that about being involved purely in an administrative capacity applies to actions regarding a topic area or editor generally, not specifically the issue of reviewing appeals. It is fairly clear that WP:INVOLVED is meant to apply when someone is contesting those administrative actions otherwise a blocking admin could reject unblock requests and the sanctioning admin could comment as uninvolved. You are suggesting a sort of loophole for admins where you just need to get a few admins to back your play and they can then shut down any appeal without further outside input. To say "well they can always take it to ArbCom" is pig-headed and corrupt reasoning. Editors should not feel like they have no choice but to go to ArbCom because a small group of admins who sanctioned them refuse to let them have their appeal heard by other admins.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• (in reply to a little above) @ Iantresman: Why don't you list your ideas for improving the DS remedy, in a few short sentences? Under this bullet point would be best. I fear your proposals have gotten lost in all the talk (it's a huge page, after all). Thanks, AGK [•] 13:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have said it before and I'll say it again here. The culture where the admin is always right and the editor has no rights is represented in the attitude that an involved admin isn't involved when enforcing policy against an editor who doesn't share the same view is flat out wrong. Until that changes, and the Arbcom takes the problem of admins abusing the tools seriously, this review is going to amount to a waste of time. Some admins make better decisions than others just like editors. Some admins start off good and let it get to their heads...they should have the tools removed. Some admins should have never been given the tools and after repeatedly abusing them still have them. Some admins never use them and use them as nothing more than a status symbol. For all the talk here in this review people are saying they want to make it more fair. Yet, in this entire discussion of review, after seeing repeatedly how to deal with editors who violate sanctions I have seen a word of talk about what would happens to an abusive admin, what happens when an admin violates the rules. If you want to make reform hold admins to the same or a higher standard than editors Stop letting them keep the tools when they violate policy. Stop making it so difficult to remove the tools from an abusive admin that editors simply give up and leave in frustration. Give someone (setup a committee or appoint group like the Bureaucrats) the job of policing the admins like the admins police the editors. Obvious abuse shouldn't have to be a multi month arbcom case. Just reforming the system to make it easier for admins to ban editors is not the answer and gives the impression that this is nothing more than a power grab to give more power to a few admins and arbs. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter. That is a perception that exists. Kumioko ( talk) 15:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• When admin is involved in dispute, sanctioning admins always take side of the involved admin. One involved admin behaved like editor, then threatned me in capacity of admin, then went to ArbCom to sanction me and I was sanctioned mercilessly by admins. [21] Wikipedia has become police state where there is no controlling authority to monitor admins. Although sanction period is expired 2 and half months ago, I do not edit that disputed article because that involved admin is still there and no matter what edit I do, he is going to again complain against me and I will be sanctioned. This DS is hopeless and disgusting procedure because of involved admins. Abhi ( talk) 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, this is my experience too. Accountability seems to be lacking. -- Iantresman ( talk) 16:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Mine as well which is why I believe if the Arbcom is serious about reform they need to include some type of liability on the part of the admins. They need to be held accountable for making bad decisions and that is current lacking. Kumioko ( talk) 16:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuity (comments)

Moving forward

The idea now is to check the new draft for typos and sillinesses, probably consolidate the overturning and appeal sections, itemise the procedures it supersedes, then get a motion up for voting,   Roger Davies ^talk 23:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Pages which will need to be updated or are superseded

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions
• AGK has done a pretty good job with Template:Ds/topics/single notice
  • Though the East Asia naming dispute special case has dropped off the lists. Given (according to the log on that case page they've never been used so could probably be gotten rid of as opposed to making them the standard version.
• Wikipedia:General sanctions#Types of sanctions - update to include possibility of page restrictions.

That's all I can think of at the moment anyone should feel free to add to it. The list will be useful for the clerks when we enact and implement this motion, so please add any pages/sections I've missed. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. That's very helpful. There are a couple of existing procedures that these will supersede. I probably need to collate them them, unless others get to it first.

The Senkaku Anomaly hasn't quite dropped off the face of the earth. I drafted two very simple housekeeping motions and have them ready to roll on this. One authorises DS; the other rescinds the remedy. Either way, the anomaly is resolved.

I'm aiming to start reviewing this tomorrow, to move it towards a vote.   Roger Davies ^talk 17:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A number of templates will need to be updated, especially now that a clearer distinction is made between individual sanctions and page restrictions, but that can come later. AGK [•] 21:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest we put a line into "Role of administrators" about sysops not amending any sanction, then merge the Overturning and Appeals sections. AGK [•] 21:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I was just going to the appeal merge initially (and indeed have done this) but it probably less cumbersome if I try to reconcile all the proposals with the current draft. I'll post this in its entirety tomorrow for discussion, as I've run out of working day now.   Roger Davies ^talk 17:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking forward to the final "draft"

There seem to be a number of aspects in the process that could be improved, from the perspective of the community, the participating admins, and the Committee. Some quick observations have me puzzling over several questions:

• Why is the appeals process so little used?
• How can admins in this forum be encouraged to engage more and engage earlier with the root, underlying issues that parties are experiencing—issues that if not resolved could at least be calmed enough to prevent the departure of valued editors
• Although there's a general shortage of admins, why can't more be attracted into serving at AE—even temporary stints of a few months? It's actually a good place for using and refining advanced admin skills in judging and resolving difficult situations. AE is surely a training ground for anyone who's thinking of running for ArbCom in subsequent years, and good anyway for acquiring the personal skills that are often the distinguishing feature of first-class adminning in the community at large. Heaven knows how short of the right kind of adminning we are for hot-button content areas, specifically. Tony (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

My views, not necessarily shared by my colleagues:

• Only problematic sanctions seem to linger in the community's mind. Most sanctions are given for blatant misconduct, and the recipients appear to realise they'd have no success with an appeal that there was a miscarriage of justice. They just wait for the sanction to expire.
• Is "this forum" AE? By the committee telling administrators to favour warnings and cautions over actual sanctions, I guess; but I worry doing so will make the DS process less effective.
• When I served as an AE sysop, I found the most trying thing was that the respondent's buddies tend to show up at the thread and submit lengthy statements calling for the complainant to be sanctioned instead. Also, some sanctioned editors and their wikifriends, particularly for geo-ethnic conflict areas, have an alarming tendency to bear grudges against the administrators that sanctioned them. It doesn't seem to be so bad these days, but it's still not a pleasant experience for people whose temperament is unsuitable or who don't enjoy difficult Wikitasks. AGK [•] 11:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I partially agree with your first comment AGK and I think that is true for a chunk of the DS's but I also think there is a large chunk of the population that doesn't do it because it takes so long and there is another chunk that doesn't trust the process. Arbcom has a tendency to punish all those involved not just the offender so its reasonable to think that coming back would only make things worse not better. I also think the Arbcom decisions are inconsistent and frequently do not punish the right ones involved. Which sort of eludes to your point number three, in some cases it is the complainant that is the problem and I have seen multiple cases were the admin involved was as much or more to blame for the problem than the editor that was punished. There is severe favoritism shown towards admins over regular editors and that has been the case for a long time. Generally speaking a lot of the community doesn't trust the Arbcom decisions and a lot doesn't care one way or the other....until it affects them. So IMO there is a lot of room for improvement to the process. Kumioko ( talk) 12:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have evidence for your assertion that "there is severe favoritism shown towards admins"? I'm an AE regular and don't get that impression – in fact, it so happens that the last person I sanctioned via AE was an administrator and then an ArbCom candidate. It's true that there's probably a low absolute number of admins being sanctioned, but I guess that is because there are fewer admins than other editors to begin with, and because of their selection process they tend not to be the kind of editor who is frequently accused of misconduct.

In general, I agree with AGK's assessment. I don't think that AE is the forum for dealing with any "root, underlying issues" - these are generally content disagreements and therefore beyond the scope of the arbitration process. All AE can do is reactively suppress misconduct as it happens. Proactive problem solution efforts are the domain of other, equally valuable processes such as mediation.  Sandstein  12:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes absolutely, look at virtually any arbcom case where an admin is involved. The non admins get sanctioned or banned and the Admins get admonishment whatever the hell that is. In many cases they should be desysopped. Look at the list of admin actions and you can see a lot of problematic admin decisions with regards to comments when deleting, abusive messages left on talk pages, questionable actions with regards to blocks and protections, and the list goes on. Personally I find it a borderline abuse of tools when admins protect their Userpages or talkpages. Unless of course there is a history of vandalism and even then it should be temporary. There are quite a few admins in fact that need to have the tools removed from them but the process is so slow and painstaking most people just leave the site rather than deal with problematic and bullyish admins. As far as mediation, that process doesn't work because we don't put any effort into it and it doesn't have any teeth. If there were some ability to folow through on the agreements, even for a temporary period of time, it would be an improvement. As for the Arthur rubin incident, its funny you bring that up because that is a prime example of an action I thought pushed the outer bounds of the Discretionary sanction rule and is a good example of why that rule doesn't work. It allows Admins such as yourself that seem to favor extreme blocks unlimited discretion and latitude to react any way you want with no repercussions. The fact that he is an admin also points to the argument that there is favoritism because seeing your trend of blocks if he wasn't you would have likely blocked him for a month to a year. Rarely do I see you use a week unless it involves admins. Kumioko ( talk) 15:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

AE has, and always has had, robust appeal arrangements. Appeals can be heard at either AE or AN. The AN route is almost completely unused largely because the appeals heard there have often been packed by the appellant's opponents, resulting in no consensus. As there is no concept of "involved editor", this is a systemic problem. Appeals at AE are sometimes tainted by bearing here in the same forum where the sanction was imposed, but proposed refinements should address that. That said, what has been an issue is editors gaming the appeal system because either (a) having been excluded from their favourite area they have nothing better to do or (b) to put it bluntly, the same personality traits that caused the original problem prevent them from moving on into non-contentious areas.

There is certainly some scope for the committee recommending that for minor first offences (that is, engaging in fresh but not serious instances of sanctionable behaviour within the topic after having been warned) the administrator consider handling it informally. However, if we place too much emphasis on this, there is the strong possibility that it will creep into more serious instances of misbehaviour which would, under normal circumstances, fully merit a sanction.

One of the greatest problems in dispute resolution on Wikipedia is the tendency to never forgive, never forget. This is often coupled with a desire to win a dispute, even trivial ones, by any available means, no matter how long it takes or how much community energy is wastefully expended in the meantime. This is why when stuff gets to ArbCom the only way to deal with the parties is to prise them off each others' throats with a crow bar. Sometimes, in the process of separation, the disputing parties stop feuding with each other and instead turn on the admins sorting out the mess. This makes AE unattractive for all but the most assured and experienced admins, who have developed coping mechanisms.   Roger Davies ^talk 13:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That problem though Roger is that the appeals never occur. You can say that there is an appeals process but when there is a nearly 100% denial rate it sends a pretty clear message to the community not to waste their time. AE and AN have both in repeated occasions stated they didn't have the authority to overturn an Arbcom sanction. On occassion a general block is overturned but those cases are rare and usually only pertain to admins. Your point about never forgive and forget is also a good one and there is also a major problem with Wikihounding by admins who feel like they need to be the edit police and go digging for any reason to block. When someone does 10, 000 edits a month, if you look, you will find something. This includes these badly worded and badly implemented "broadly construed" discretionary sanctions. Most of the 1400+ admins don't follow the cases, so when they see someone editing they make their own determinations about what a violation of a sanction is. In many cases, the edit is so far off the sanctioned topic that its barely related, yet no one undoes the block or steps in to correct it. That is the fault of Arbcom and to a degree AE. Arbitration enforcement should not only be inflicting punishment, it should also be ensuring that the action is fair and in keeping with the sanction. Kumioko ( talk) 15:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand the thrust of this at all. Since when don't AE or ANI have the authority to overturn an AE sanction? This whole discussion is getting bogged down in hype, myth and misinformation.   Roger Davies ^talk 16:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I would need to see more than 1 or 2 isolated cases where it was done to believe that this is just hype, myth and misinformation. It may well be incorrect but it is a perception that is resident within the community. Sandstein has said it multiple times, I beleive I just saw AGK say it in the past couple months on a case that an appeal had to go through arbcom and AE did not have the authority to overturn it and ANI definately without a question in my mind does not have that power. In fact if these venues did wouldn't it negate the point of Arbitration if the community could just revert the action by supermajority? AE sanctions are done on the authority of the arbitration motion, so any random admin at ANI would logically not have the authority to just overturn it. Sandstein has said it himself that consensus does not apply to AE. So how would there be a consensus at AE to overturn an AE ruling if there is no application of consensus? In fact in the last year I believe I have only seen one caseof an AE motion being overturned and that was because the admin that did it was bombarded by complaints about how bad the decision was to block that individual. They finally relented after about 2 weeks of constant debate and only then because multiple admins were invovled. Appeals simply do not happen because although they might be allowed by policy they are dismissed. Kumioko ( talk) 17:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, over the last couple of months, there have been at least two successful appeals, one granted by the community and one by by ArbCom. It's true, successful appeals are rare (I don't know why – it's possible that they are rare because editors don't even bother appealing a sanction they perceive as unwarranted because they think their appeal won't be taken seriously, which would be a problem), but they do happen. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I would point out that the appeal to the Arbcom was successful only after a high profile, and I think damaging ANI discussion which was quite prejudicial to the AE admin. My own appeal to the Arbcom was low profile, and unsuccessful, so far at least. — Neotarf ( talk) 00:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Roger, I've been away for a while, but from what I recall the appeals process is not nearly as robust as you indicate, if not as pointless as Kumioko asserts. AE requests can and have been closed by a single administrator, even in the midst of objection and discussion, and appeals to the same have a very hard time overcoming the wide discretion granted to administrators, especially given reluctance of AE admins to try to override another, for reasons of respect, and fear of being accused of wheel warring and/or flouting Aribtration remedy.

As a result, if you will allow the descent into amateurish game theory, is that you have a first-mover problem combined with a most-severe problem, the first admin to close a request is likely to have their preferred sanction prevail, except that sanctions are far easier to extend than to shorten, by pointing to any subsequent behavior as the user not learning their lesson. Combined with the behavior norms, the appeals process gets sticky, and the admins most likely to push or enact an appeal are not infrequently those a little more hot under the collar.

I'm not sure you can legislate (that is, policy or rules write) the problem away. The solution may just be for patrolling administrators to be aware of the dynamics and give extra efforts to avoid trampling over each-other and to treat sanctions with kid gloves. Maybe some rejiggering of the degree to which admins can check other admins, or even a dedicated panel providing review could do it, or maybe the status quo is the best we have. But it isn't a fake problem.-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tznkai that sometimes requests are closed prematurely, but I think this has been occurring less often in recent times. With regard to the appeals process, I think that by and large it works quite well. I don't agree there are too few appeals - there seems to me to be rather a lot of them - but IMO the reason most fail is simply because they have no merit. Gatoclass ( talk) 12:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to prevent appeals being re-opened if they've been closed prematurely. Perhaps you could keep an eye open for this and chip in, Tznkai? Otherwise, I agree that it has a lot to do with dynamics (which will change depending on the mix of participants, as anything else).   Roger Davies ^talk 12:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Why so few editors bother to appeal is the question. Tony (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That could be answered by examining the contributions made by some sanctioned editors in the days and weeks after they were sanctioned (or indeed by asking them). AGK [•] 12:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I know many treat it as a wake up call, and move somewhere less contentious. There are around 4,5 million articles to choose from ofterall.   Roger Davies ^talk 12:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Roger, I am happy to pitch in, but it is a poor system that depends on any particular operator, and the system will push its operators in one direction or another. More importantly, and this is just one of the real dangers in the whole arbitration enforcement process, just slightly exacerbated in zone-of-conflict style enforcement, there is little administrators can do to restrain other administrators other than pleading. Reopening a prematurely closed sanction or appeal can be fairy interpreted as attempting to overide another. Running off to ArbCom for an appeal in every case is dubious - you shouldn't ask administrators to have to skip straight to bridge burning to exercise a little control. Personally, I think I viable solution is to beef up the expectations of administrators, perhaps with specific reminders to be reasonable and solicitous of other administrators.-- Tznkai ( talk) 15:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

So the "informational warnings" are actually meant to be a "wake up call" to leave, and are in fact interpreted in that way, by both the AE admins and the content editors. And one of these templates can be delivered to anyone, for no reason at all, without explaining anything to them, and there is no criteria for who gets selected to receive one of these "wake up calls" and who doesn't, other than it's understood they won't be given to admins. — Neotarf ( talk) 02:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Context: Sue, on the Wikipedia death spiral and the "holy shit" slide

The discretionary sanctions system is not isolated, but co-exists inside the WP system. How do they mesh? And how would this proposal change the current equilibrium?

A video of Sue Gardner talking about "endless September".

2:00 Editor retention is not not not OK. It’s a big problem. It’s the thing that needs to be solved.

2:30 “The holy shit slide.” New editors aren’t making it to their first year anniversary. People are coming in large numbers as they always have, but they are getting rebuffed. Why are they failing to enter the community? Warnings have gone up, criticism is ‘way up’, and praise and thanks have been in decline. People join, and then it’s warning template after template.

25:00 People are playing Wikipedia like a video game, shooting down vandals, and every now and then a nun or a tourist wanders in front of the AK47 and just gets murdered. "What we think now is that it's all nuns and tourists. There's a big massacre and there's one vandal in the background running away. And meanwhile everyone else is dead."

Well, that sure hits home.

— Neotarf ( talk) 08:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sue seems to be talking about the user warning (uw) templates being used on brand new editors. Discretionary sanctions, on the other hand, are really only used on established editors. I doubt there is wisdom in Sue's words: her penchant for soundbites is infamous. But if there is, you may be heartened to know that the DSR has led to a softer "alert" template being created; it basically takes the stigma out of what we currently call "notices". Regards, AGK [•] 08:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Though it may be true that Sue likes the publicity I hope you realize your comments show that you don't take the problem of editor retention seriously. Whether you choose to agree or not (being one of those that dole them out) discretionary sanctions are hurting the project and the broadly construed language that allows any admin to interpret the sanction anyway they want contributes to that compounding the problem. As you know I am aware of why the broadly construed language was added but I have come to believe that the fix for the problem is worse that the problem itself and needs to be rethought. Kumioko ( talk) 17:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Data (scroll down to number of editors) indicates actual number of editors is essentially flat. NE Ent 20:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I find this data useful too, [22] which shows that the number of active editors (I generally use a rule of thumb of over 100 edits per month), seems relatively steady, hovering around 3,000–3,500 per month. Higher at some times of the year (such as the holidays), lower in others. -- El on ka 21:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@ NE Ent and Elonka,

• The actual number of editors is not flat at all, it only looks that way because the top of the graph is compressed--it’s not to scale. Estimating from the actual numbers on the y-axis, the number of editors on the English Wikipedia has dropped from roughly 30,000 to 35,000 users, a decrease of around 5,000 users. That’s as many editors as are on the whole French Wikipedia altogether.

• Looking at the other document with the editor number charts, you can see that the number of users peaked in April 2007 and has since steadily declined. The number of users with over 100 edits has dropped from 4733 in April of 2007 to 2990 in October of 2013, a net decrease of 1773 editors, or 37.2%. The downward trend is steady; if you compare October of 2012 to October 2013, there was a decrease in editors from 3222 to 2990, a net decrease of 7%.

So Sue pretty much nailed it. If this isn’t an “oh shit” document, I don’t know what is. — Neotarf ( talk) 08:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's true that the numbers were higher in 2007, but that's normal. If you look at any new software, product, game, etc., and its graph of participation, you will usually see it start low, then interest will "spike" while the product is new, and then trail off and stabilize. I call this effect the "novelty spike". As things trail off, it doesn't mean that the product is doomed, it just means that the novelty has worn off. The better metric is to just look at the numbers over the last three years or so, rather than look at all numbers since the project began. -- El on ka 15:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it stabilizing, it's still going down. You don't have to even plug the numbers into a line graph, just eyeball the columns. Any of them. They're all going down, and for the last seven years. "Endless September"?

That has some sobering implications, in light of the Arbitration Enforcement's stated goal of resolving disagreements by just getting rid of all the editors, and starting over. — Neotarf ( talk) 09:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The foregoing comment concerning editor retention has implications in terms of the comment currently immediately below what I'm writing ('An active and effective DS system can help with editor retention by removing the (normally few) problematic editors from areas where their aggressive, confrontational and bullying conduct deters the majority of collaboratively-minded editors from participating'). I've stated before that this is inherently illogical. The arbitration in question was supposed to do that, and presumably did that. Otherwise, what was the purpose of the arbitration? But in conjunction with an arbitration which allegedly achieved that purpose, discretionary sanctions are then imposed when there are by definition no other 'bad editors' involved with the topic in question because if there had been, why weren't they brought into the arbitration, and dealt with along with the other 'bad editors'? Thus, when DS are imposed as part of an arbitration, they are by definition imposed on potential editors who might turn out to be 'bad editors'. This can't help but create an atmosphere of unease, particularly when very few editors fully understand what DS entail, and with good reason, because DS are 'discretionary' by definition, and therefore play out in many different ways. The root question I've asked before remains, and has never been answered. When an arbitration has supposedly gotten rid of all the 'bad editors' currently involved with the topic in question (otherwise, why was there an arbitration in the first place?), why are DS imposed as part of the arbitration when supposedly there are no 'bad editors' left editing on that topic? NinaGreen ( talk) 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

An active and effective DS system can help with editor retention by removing the (normally few) problematic editors from areas where their aggressive, confrontational and bullying conduct deters the majority of collaboratively-minded editors from participating. With every such editor removed, we improve the climate and create editing opportunities for many others.  Sandstein  22:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there evidence to support that contention? NE Ent 22:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that Sandstein is that theory does not hold true. What actually happens is the broadly construed terminology ends up being used as a bludgeon for admins to block editors, any of whom are unaware of the sanction. That action is seen by others and it causes a ripple effect. So what ends up happening is either no one edits the articles at all or the articles are only edited by those who only post the positive to the articles. This means that the articles do not have a neutral tone. I would also argue that many of the "probleatic" editors you mention were just the non admins of the group. Kumioko ( talk) 01:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, it seems self-evident. AGK [•] 06:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

So let's take as an example the recent Infoboxes Case. The case involved the topic area of opera and classical music, and had wide participation by editors in that field, some of whom had stayed away for years because they did not want to participate in continuous infobox discussions. As a result of the case, two individuals ended up with restrictions, based on findings, backed by evidence. Now, say some new individual comes along and starts adding infoboxes at random to classical music articles. I think what Sandstein is saying here is that at this point, it will be the business of AE to simply get rid of the music editors who participated in the original case.— Neotarf ( talk) 02:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That depends. Are the "music editors" engaging in the same type of aggressive conduct that got them sanctioned in the first place? Then yes, they need to be removed. Are they behaving well but the other editor behaving poorly? Then the other one needs to go. Are both sides attacking one another? Then they're creating a toxic environment and they all need to be stopped from it. Is everyone discussing the matter calmly and without rancor, being willing to hear out the other side and expressing reasoned disagreement if they disagree? That's what should be happening, and if it is, no one needs to be sanctioned at all. It's entirely dependent upon how each particular editor is behaving. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If I may split the baby for a moment, we need to simultaneously be more hospitable to passionate editors while also controlling bad conduct. What we have a is a culture problem - if partisan nastiness prevails, all you get is partisan nastiness, but if zero tolerance prevails, you get no one. We need to encourage editing environments to allow partisan warriors to be transformed into reasonable well behaved editors, and eliminate editing environments that ensure only the hardiest of partisans survive. We must play to win, not just to avoid losing. I think the best solution, given other Wikipedia norms, in my opinion, is to empower admins as necessary to clear the decks, but encourage them to use a deft touch. More than cops or judges, administrators in this context are like mid-year replacement school teachers in a classroom out of control.-- Tznkai ( talk) 04:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like the editors who were not named in the final decision, and who are already exhausted by years of acrimony, have no choice but to reopen the matter and rehash all the old arguments, and expose themselves once again to the possibly of being sanctioned just for participating, in order to satisfy the one person who came after the dispute was closed.— Neotarf ( talk) 04:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they're being forced to participate, no. Though I think if one sees people consistently coming along and saying "Hey, this is wrong", the options are that either something isn't quite right and might need more extensive examination, or that there may need to be a clear synopsis made available for those unaware that significant discussion on the matter has already taken place. I would see nothing wrong with saying "This has been discussed extensively. To avoid repetition, could you please review this previous RfC, and see if there are any concerns you have that aren't already addressed there?" That's very different from "Oh, yet one more idiot on about this." I've seen both done. The former is conducive to calm discussion (and often ends with "Oh, I see now, thanks"), while the latter will probably start a (much more exhausting) fight. Keeping a civil tone and being willing to listen does not mean that one must agree to endless debate or accept abuse, but it does reduce the likelihood of either occurring to start with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think the infobox debate is a perfect example of WikiProject exerting undo influence and ownership over the articles in their scope. I found it shocking the Arbco actually supported this concept and frankly I think it was a mistake and sacrificed policy to appease a couple of overly aggressive WikiProjects. That is a trend I am seeing all too often from the Committee these days and therein lies the problem with them. Kumioko ( talk) 14:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia 'justice system'

As per the discussion above, I'll start a new section here to clarify what I think would be quick 'fixes' to bring the Wikipedia 'justice system' more into line with the principles of justice in the rest of the Western world (see the earlier discussion for the rationale).

• No indefinite 'sentences' (sanctions) on individual editors. Either permanent bans or fixed-term bans which will eventually expire without the need for time-consuming requests to have indefinite bans on individual editors lifted. There would have to be an appeal procedure, but most editors on whom fixed-term bans have been imposed will just wait to have them expire rather than tackle the technically complex and confusing appeal procedure which currently exists.
• No sentences (sanctions) 'broadly construed' for individual editors. This implies fewer topic bans for individual editors because they're the only sentence (sanction) which uses the language 'broadly construed'. It's far simpler, far more efficient, and far more logical to ban a troublesome editor altogether for a definite period of time which will eventually expire than to impose a topic ban 'broadly construed' which may be difficult for administrators and the banned editor to interpret.
• No discretionary sentences (discretionary sanctions). Replace them with topic sanctions, the primary purpose of which is to shut down a conflict-ridden page until tempers cool. Editors will hate this, but they'll hate it en masse, and no individual editor will feel individually picked on and unfairly dealt with. And think of the administrative time that will be saved! All that's required is a page block.

All quick and easy 'fixes'. All eminently fair. All will lessen administrative overload. NinaGreen ( talk) 20:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's procedures are nothing to do with "justice"—they are aimed at improving the encyclopedia by reducing disruption. Bitter experience shows that assigning fixed-term blocks or bans in long-term cases is ineffective because someone who is on a mission to promote the truth will simply wait out the sanction, and then resume, albeit with more caution. The result is a training system that generates better POV warriors who are able to push their case longer and harder before the next sanction. By contrast, an indefinite system is totally flexible as it allows the sanction to be lifted as soon as the editor concerned demonstrates an understanding of how to achieve a positive outcome for the encyclopedia. It is essential that "broadly construed" be retained as it is amazing how some topic banned editors react to their situation—"oh, I can't edit Obama articles to allege deficiencies in his birth certificate, so I'll go and edit birth certificate articles and point out how they can be forged in order to claim citizenship". In some cases, there are unfortunate side effects from a broadly construed topic ban, but in a complex project where anyone can edit, perfect dispute resolution is unachievable. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq. You wrote:'By contrast, an indefinite system is totally flexible as it allows the sanction to be lifted as soon as the editor concerned demonstrates an understanding of how to achieve a positive outcome for the encyclopedia'. Illogical, I'm afraid, and I'll bet it almost never happens, because firstly, it's a total Catch-22 because a banned editor can't demonstrate anything during an indefinite ban, so how can an appeal of an indefinite ban ever succeed on the ground that the editor has now demonstrated he can achieve a positive outcome for the encyclopedia? Secondly, the type of editor of whom you're speaking would be quite capable of pulling the wool over the arbitrators' eyes by grovelling during an appeal, so nothing is gained by the indefinite ban and the appeal that wouldn't be gained by just banning the editor for a couple of years and saving both the banned editor and the arbitrators the trouble of an appeal. You also wrote: 'It is essential that "broadly construed" be retained as it is amazing how some topic banned editors react to their situation—"oh, I can't edit Obama articles to allege deficiencies in his birth certificate, so I'll go and edit birth certificate articles and point out how they can be forged in order to claim citizenship". Very true, and that's why I said earlier that Wikipedia should never topic-ban individual editors. If an editor has behaved really badly -- sufficiently badly to warrant banning as a result of an arbitration -- then the arbitrators should just ban that editor for a fixed period of time. Get the editor away from editing entirely for 6 months or a year or two, or however long the arbitrators deem necessary. Unfortunately there seems to be no clarity in the arbitrators' minds when it comes to the difference between topic-banning an editor, which is a waste of time, and imposing 'sanctions' on a topic. To keep a page which is a 'hot' topic relatively free of conflict, all that's needed is a page block by an administrator for however long it takes to tamp down the conflict on that page. As I said above, all editors will hate the fact that no-one can edit the page during the page block, but no-one will feel that he has been singled out and unjustly picked-on. We have to keep in mind that most of these POV-pushers, as Wikipedia terms them, are decent people with very strong views on a particular topic, often very strong moral or political views. They're mostly not bad people, or vandals, so trying to punish them individually in a fair and just way is fraught with a lot more problems than just blocking the page in question from editing by anyone for a few days (or longer, if necessary). NinaGreen ( talk) 01:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked at the number of people who have stated that 'Wikipedia's procedures are nothing to do with "justice"', and can only conclude that this view is widely held by arbitrators and administrators, and if so, it demonstrates that there needs to be a review of basic premises. If Wikipedia procedures have nothing to do with 'justice', then they can only have to do with the obverse, 'injustice', and I doubt any arbitrator or administrator with agree with that characterization of Wikipedia procedures. What seems to be needed is a clear distinction between two very different things, the Western world's principles of 'justice', and the complex procedures of the Western world's 'criminal justice system' involving legal representation and a myriad of legal procedures which would tie Wikipedia up in knots and cannot possibly have a place here. However before leaving the latter point, wouldn't any objective observer looking at the draft procedures for discretionary sanctions and the endless back and forth on this page decide that Wikipedia has indeed tied itself up in procedural knots equal to the procedural knots of the criminal justice system?

Wikipedia procedures do have to be about justice, and the quickest way for Wikipedia to get back to procedural justice is the elimination of the most blatant of the Wikipedia sanctions which violate the Western world's concept of justice, i.e. the imposition of indefinite 'sentences' against individual editors, and the imposition of sentences 'broadly construed' against individual editors. The reasons against both have been explained already, but in summary, an 'indefinite' sentence is really a permanent ban in disguise because of the technical difficulties which banned editors face in trying to launch an appeal and in gauging when the arbitrators might be disposed to hear one, and because of the reality that most editors against whom an indefinite topic ban is imposed are single-purpose editors and POV-pushers, as Wikipedia terms them, and have no interest in editing elsewhere on Wikipedia, so they're never going to be able to demonstrate 'an understanding of how to achieve a positive outcome for the encyclopedia', as Johnuniq put it above. Most of them are never going to edit successfully elsewhere on Wikipedia. And if they do, they'll likely be met with accusations that they're violating the indefinite topic ban, as per Johnuniq's example above, which brings in the 'broadly construed' problem. Johnuniq wrote: 'It is essential that "broadly construed" be retained as it is amazing how some topic banned editors react to their situation—"oh, I can't edit Obama articles to allege deficiencies in his birth certificate, so I'll go and edit birth certificate articles and point out how they can be forged in order to claim citizenship".' I think many objective observers outside Wikipedia would look at that example and say, 'Well, editing a general article on birth certificates has nothing to do with discrediting Obama's birth certificate in particular, and if the forging of birth certificates for various purposes is a legitimate topic in an article on birth certificates, and the edits are backed up by reliable sources, what has this particular editor done to violate his topic ban'? That's the whole problem with topic bans in a nutshell. They're subject to interpretation, and in very few cases will there be agreement on the proper interpretation. That sort of 'sentence' violates the principles of Western justice, which mandate that whatever the penalty imposed, it must be clear and definite, and that nothing be left to 'interpretation'.

The quick 'fix' is a simple one. All bans on individual editors need to have a fixed time period, i.e. either a permanent ban for the most egregious conduct by an editor who is considered destructive and irredeemable, or a fixed-term ban (6 months, a year, whatever) which will eventually expire, and will allow the editor to resume editing without any time-consuming involvement by administrators or arbitrators. If the conduct recurs, then obviously a lengthier fixed-term ban can be imposed.

An entirely separate problem involves pages which are known conflict areas, and the 'quick fix', which will both decrease administrator workload and increase editor retention, is page blocks. I suspect administrators and arbitrators have forgotten (if they ever knew) what an insulting slap in the face and blow to one's self-respect a block on an individual editor is. It's no wonder many editors leave Wikipedia entirely after having been personally blocked for some infraction or other. The problem with individual editor blocks and other sanctions on individual editors is that there are always hurt feelings. Moreover because everything is discretionary, editors never know for sure what might come down on them, another violation of the principle of Western justice which holds that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but at the same time specifies the precise penalty which will result from infringement of a particular law. Discretionary sanctions create a feeling of unease and insecurity among editors, because there's simply no predicting what might happen. Page blocks, on the other hand, frustrate all involved editors equally, but single out no-one individually, which assists in editor retention and dramatically reduces administrator workload.

As I said earlier, it's a win-win situation all round. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

NinaGreen, you stated "If Wikipedia procedures have nothing to do with 'justice', then they can only have to do with the obverse, 'injustice'." This is not even a little true. Those of us who have been arguing with you have been saying that Wikipedia (and its dispute resolution systems) operate orthagonally to justice, not in opposition. You've asserted that you offer quick fixes, that are win-win all around, and I hope you've noted that several editors have reasonably disagreed on both of those points. We can get into point and counter point as neccessary, but why do you think that "Western justice," again, assuming for the sake of argument that such a thing exists, is a thing worthy of following here? It is certainly true that the majority of the editors are steeped in cultural assumptions broadly from so called "Western civilization," and that informs much of what we do, but it is quite a hop skip and a jump to suggest we want to import the same indefinite conflict that whole nations have and continue to kill whole other nations over into editorial debate.-- Tznkai ( talk) 21:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Tznkai, I've also said that an objective outsider looking at Wikipedia's oligarchy consisting of a handful of arbitrators, its 1400 administrators, and its use of the term 'arbitration enforcement' (AE) might think we were running a police state here.:-) Would that be sufficiently different from 'Western judicial principles' to make you happy?:-) On a more serious note, I've suggested quick 'fixes' which would lessen administrator workload, increase editor retention, and create an all-round happier atmosphere on Wikipedia. Let's keep the discussion focussed on that, and not go off onto philosophical tangents. Happy New Year, everyone! NinaGreen ( talk) 22:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

A question just occurred to me. Is there any mechanism for implementing my suggestions? I ask this because I'm not aware of one. It seems everything is ultimately in the hands of the above-mentioned oligarchy. I don't use the term disparagingly. I respect and appreciate the arbitrators' commitment to a very difficult and time-consuming job. But the reality seems to be that every aspect of Wikipedia sanctions is ultimately up to the arbitrators, and there is no mechanism for making changes to the nature of Wikipedia sanctions or to the manner in which sanctions are administered other than convincing the arbitrators. Or am I wrong? NinaGreen ( talk) 17:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. "Yes" in the sense that major policy decisions are made via the rfc process. Examples include the list at Wikipedia:Pending_changes#Timeline and Wikipedia:VisualEditor/RFC, and arbcom policy can be amended if you can get 100 editors to sign off on the proposal. "No" in the sense that there are 122,676 active users, the overwhelming majority of whom never get sucked up into the dispute resolution process at all. We don't operate a justice as I've essayed at WP:NOJUSTICE and the committee is't really at that important as explained at the committee. Wikipedia "inside" i.e. stuff within the Wikipedia: namespace is a political process, and you're just not going to get sufficient support with your approach here. Your posts are way too long, too strident (e.g. using inflammatory terms like "oligarchy"), and are proposing radical overhaul of existing systems that have evolved over the years. The way to enact change is generally slowly, through persuasion while respecting the rest of the community. NE Ent 17:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, NE Ent. They're appreciated. But I suggest you moderate your own scolding tone. My postings have not been strident, and 'oligarchy' is not an inflammatory term; it's a term to describe a political reality, wherever it might occur, and I specifically stated that I was not using it disparagingly. As for my postings being too long, if you can suggest a more compendious way of discussing far-reaching principles underlying dispute resolution, please do so. I'd say the length of the discussion of the proposed changes to DS on this page (totally exclusive of my own postings) demonstrates in spades just how difficult it is to discuss this topic compendiously. But back to the main issue. Getting 100 editors to sign anything seems a rather hopeless task, and I think my question highlights the fact that there needs to be more community input into the dispute resolution process in a way which doesn't require one individual to canvass support from 100 editors. You're right that my suggestions imply a 'radical overhaul of existing systems that have evolved over the years', but that's beside the point. The point is whether the existing systems need overhauling, and whether the changes I've suggested would improve Wikipedia. You also wrote: 'The way to enact change is generally slowly, through persuasion while respecting the rest of the community.' I couldn't agree more. That's why I've taken the time and trouble to post on this topic and to put these suggestions forward for consideration. Over the long term, I think change will take place. But the seed for change has to be planted somewhere. I'm not naive enough to think the arbitrators will adopt my suggestions tomorrow. But I respect them enough to know they're not entirely ignoring them. I also want to add, with all due respect, that the first change which should be made is for you to retitle your essay WP:NOJUSTICE from 'Wikipedia: There is no justice' to Wikipedia is not a legal system'. There is a huge difference between the two things, as I pointed out in one of my postings above, and I think many people both inside and outside Wikipedia would find it offensive that Wikipedia openly brags that 'there is no justice' and that 'Wikipedia is not fair'. Where do these ideas come from? NinaGreen ( talk) 19:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I broadly agree with what NinaGreen says here. I have been appalled over the last few years at how badly broken RfCs on users and the ANI page are see for example: " ANI process ... no longer think it fit for purpose". -- PBS ( talk) 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

General comments from Harry Mitchell

I've been involved at AE, on and off, for several years. I seem to be a little late to this party, but I wanted to make some comments and suggestions (on arbitration enforcement/discretionary sanctions in general, rather than the draft text), both for the consideration of the committee, and for members of the wider community who do not closely follow AE.

Comments/observations on AE and discretionary sanctins as they are currently:

• The first thing I feel I should state, in the light of some of the comments I've read here and elsewhere, is that the vast majority of actions taken under the provisions of discretionary sanctions are entirely uncontroversial and usually irrefutable. The sanctions are usually for conduct that any reasonable person would think fell well below the level of decorum expected of encyclopaedia editors, much less editors working in toxic and controversial topic areas. In >90% of cases, no objective person could look at the facts and conclude that the admin acted unreasonably.
• Although any single admin has the power to enforce arbitration remedies (including imposing discretionary sanctions in the areas where they're authorised) unilaterally, my experience is that most violations are reported to WP:AE, because it's the best place to find admins familiar with the procedures. Thus, most enforcement requests get the attention of at least two or three admins, even if the result is uncontroversial, and several more will likely see it but not comment. AE is of course a public noticeboard. While it's not a venue for threaded discussion, any editor can comment on requests. I for one would welcome concise, clueful comments from uninvolved editors, especially those with no strong feelings about the topic area in question.
• Contrary to comments about admins having sweeping powers, we only enforce arbitration remedies. Although in the case of discretionary sanctions, we have close to carte blanche to decide on the exact method of enforcement (if enforcement action is necessary—"discretionary" also means that we have the option of taking no action or of a warning or something else intangible), we don't just make up the rules as we go along, and we can't sanction people willy nilly. In fact, our hands are tied by ArbCom much more tightly than is commonly believed. If you're unlucky enough to be sanctioned at AE, you would have to have done something that falls well below the standard of conduct expected of editors in controversial topic areas, after being advised of the expected level of conduct (or, if this draft becomes policy, clearly demonstrating that you are aware of it), and most likely after seeing edit-notices and talk page banners advising you of the discretionary sanctions, and probably after being advised that your conduct did not meet that standard. I'm an empathetic person, but I'd struggle to believe that that was just bad luck.
• Others have (correctly) observed that AE is dominated by a small number of admins. This is probably a result of a combination factors, including the toxicity that surrounds arbitration, the perniciousness of the topic areas subject to the sanctions, and the bureaucratic procedures involved with taking arbitration enforcement actions. This is not ideal, but it's not a crisis—some admins are more active than others, some comment on issues to do with particular topic areas, much like any other areas; of course, more objective opinions (from admins and non-admins alike) would be very welcome.
• There is a lack of critical thinking at AE. Many of the editors we deal with at AE are not bad people; they're not trolls or vandals. For the most part, although their actions are disruptive, it is not their intention to damage the encyclopaedia, and AE admins should, wherever possible, seek ways of limiting their disruption while allowing them to continue making constructive edits. AE admins too often (in my opinion) fall back on blunt instruments which either kick the can down the road (such as short-term blocks) or give the editor no chance to redeem themselves or make constructive edits in less controversial areas (such as broad topic bans or lengthy blocks).

Suggestions/proposals for improvements of AE/discretionary sanctions:

• Scrutiny of AE should be welcomed. It tends to be a mostly forgotten corner of the project space, but we (the admins who work there) should welcome comments from a broader range of editors, including non-admins. Extra objective opinions might not change anything, but people can have more confidence in the system if they feel they have a stake in it, and we may get some useful suggestions or outside observations which make the process work better.
• Add a clause to the standard motions/remedies authorising discretionary sanctions and to the log to encourage admins to use the AE noticeboard (and encourage parties to use it rather than approaching an admin directly) rather than acting unilaterally, especially when considering long-term sanctions or actions that might be controversial.
• Simplify the appeals process, and require admins invoking discretionary sanctions to inform the sanctioned editor of their right to appeal (to AE and/or ArbCom). Perhaps appeals of blocks could be conducted on the blocked user's talk page and transcluded to WP:AE? Regardless, it should be quick and simple to appeal arbitration enforcement actions, even for relatively inexperienced editors, and even while blocked.
• Arbitrators, especially the longer-serving arbs (and possibly some of the longer-serving AE admins), should approach experienced admins with a good track record of level-headedness and ask them to consider weighing in at AE from time to time. Hopefully this would deepen the pool of admins who handle AE requests and possibly bring in some fresh thinking and different perspectives.
• Arbitrator participation a AE in an advisory role. Where something contentious or novel is being proposed, especially when the editor in question or their supporters are claiming that the scenario was no one foreseen by ArbCom during the relevant case, it may be useful to hear from an arbitrator. This could be either an individual arb's perception of the case or one arb speaking for the committee.
• Periodical review of discretionary sanctions. Every few years, ArbCom (or perhaps an ad hoc body appointed by them) should review discretionary sanctions in a given topic area to evaluate whether i) they are having the intended effect, ii) they are still necessary in that topic area, and iii) whether admins' enforcement of them is in line with achieving the aim the committee had in mind when authorising them.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Amended. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

HJ: Thank you very much for your submission. This will usefully inform the decisions we need to make at the end of this review. AGK [•] 12:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Now this is odd

I don't remember seeing anything like this before:

3. [UserA], [UserB], and [UserC] are subject to Standard Discretionary Sanctions, indefinitely. This may be appealed to the community not less than one year after they become effective.

It seems that something is meant to apply to individuals without regards to a case or a topic. — Neotarf ( talk) 12:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When ArbCom does it they have called it probation or phrased it slightly differently differently. I know there is an example but I can never remember it. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is a discussion at ANI about this topic. The thread is Requesting removal of a stigmatizing ARBCOM case log entry. — Neotarf ( talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Site bans over blocks

I brought this up before but another thought just occurred to me. Is it currently stands there is no authorisation for me to block an editor under discretionary sanctions but there is an authorisation for me to ban them. So this would mean that if I were dealing with a violation of discretionary sanctions imposed 1RR I would need to ban them for 24 hours because I'm not authorised to just block. This seems to present (at least to me) a strange situation where removing someone from being able to particpate in the community for short periods of time, as opposed to technically preventing them from editing, becomes the norm (including for discretionary sanctions). So my suggestion, would the arbs please consider changing "site bans" to "blocks" under Individual sanctions? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that a block would probably be reasonably authorized under "other measures necessary...", but I also see your point, and a site ban is a more significant and generally longer-term remedy than a block. Given that administrators normally have the authority to block editors on reasonable discretion, I would see no problem adding blocking as a potential remedy, but would be interested to hear from my colleagues if there is a specific reason this was excluded. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. For simplicity, it's probably easiest to add block to the list. Which I'll do now (even though the lit isn't meant to be exhaustive).   Roger Davies ^talk 07:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done   Roger Davies ^talk 16:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of use of talk page Information

• Revision as of 19:51, 17 January 2014 user:PBS (revert reactoring of the section I initiated. user:Roger Davies If I had wanted to place it higher up the page I would have done so; Per refactoring guideline please do not do it again.)
• Revision as of 15:53, 18 January 2014 user:AGK (→‎Issuing alerts (Comments #2): move section back up to 'Issuing alerts'; do not move it back again -- it is not you who has to wade through all this at the end)]

Anthony no-one has to "wade through all this at the end" unless they want to. However there is a rule against re-factoring text on talk pages when an editor has specifically requested that it is not done. Please put the section back where I placed it. My placing was deliberated, because I know very well that people go to the last section on a talk page for current views, and I would appreciate it if you would revert your move. If I was not assuming good will I would be tempted to assume that you move for nefarious reasons, so to show that is not the case please revert your move. -- PBS ( talk) 19:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@ PBS: In fact we (the arbitrators) will have to wade through this consultation at the end. The arbitrator charged with the subject of alerts will be looking at the alerts section above. They shouldn't have to jump between the archived and current alerts discussion section and your special section at the bottom of the page; discussion should be centralised. The section therefore needs to stay with all the other sections discussing alerts. AGK [•] 19:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

On the 'rule against re-factoring', the arbitration policy would take precedence: we are responsible for the "administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages". AGK [•] 19:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the policy, not the policy. If it is the specific section title that worries you then as a compromise rename the section something like "PBS's comments on issuing alerts" -- PBS ( talk) 19:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Is your first sentence a typo? I don't understand it, sorry.) Nobody wants to watch and read several places at once so that, as you say, there is a larger audience for your views. Changing the section title still does not centralise the discussion, and therefore is not a solution. Unless another arbitrator disagrees, the section can stay next to the other alert threads. Thanks, AGK [•] 19:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

AGK and PBS, please stop contributing like children here. NE Ent 19:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No it was no typo you wrote "On the 'rule against re-factoring', the arbitration policy would take precedence" I replied this is a discussion about the policy, not the policy (so there is no "arbitration policy" to take precedence). the reason for the introduction of the re-factoring rule was precisely for circumstances like this so that the primary discussion did not get sidetracked. It seems odd to me to be discussing a draft that includes "follow editorial and behavioural best practice" and then have someone says that best practice should be ignored because they know best. But as you have stated that I can take it or lump it, I will say no more. -- PBS ( talk) 20:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "clear and substantial consensus" is used twice in the draft in two sections ( Reducing or overturning sanctions and Appeals). "What precisely does it mean? As the WP:CONSENSUS policy contains no such wording, I think that if it is defined elsewhere in the policies of guidelines then a link should be provided or if not and it is retained then a precise definition ought to be placed in the definitions section. If neither of these options are desirable then it should be replaced with a term that is defined in the policies and guidelines. -- PBS ( talk) 12:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

See I know it when I see it NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

But see WP:The duck test, where it becomes of concern if you are The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs. -- Iantresman ( talk) 14:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@ NewsAndEventsGuy: do you think that the definitions section is not needed? For example "Committee" is defined and that is far more self-explanatory than "clear and substantial consensus". This is a multi-ethnic multi-cultural site, so why would you assume that " I know it when I see it" is an appropriate retort to "what precisely does it mean?"? -- PBS ( talk) 12:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have stated it multiple times with no reply so now I'll post it this way. This review, good intentioned though it may be, is going to be abused if the Arbcom doesn't add something to deal with abusive admins. I realize that many admins and arbcom members feel that regular editors don't have a clue, that they are all replacable and that common editors and IP's can't be trusted and need admins. We don't. The fact is too large of a number of admins, whether you want to admit it or not, are abusive and need to be removed or at least have their wings clipped. This is the real reason why most admins wouldn't succeed if they rerun in RFA, because most got the tools back in 05-08, many have let it go to their heads, the community can't do anything to stop it (so people just leave) and Arbcom doesn't have the desire or morale courage to do what is in their mandate.

I no longer care if you agree with me but there are abusive admins in this project and the Arbcom is the only ones with the authority and the mandate to deal with them. Now all they need is the desire, which unforunately is lacking. After reading this entire review its clear to me that the intent is there to make the process better...but it won't because it makes the incorrect assumption that admins are not going to abuse the system. They will, they have done it before, they will do it again. Its time for the Arbcom to quite ignoring the problem and do something about it. Otherwise all the reviews of bad policy in the world won't stop Wikipedia from failing. At this point the Arbcom has in my opinion outlived its usefulness and if they don't have the desire or morale courage to do the right thing and deal with the problem of abusive admins then they should just quit. The project would be better off without the added burdon and bureaucracy. One of the most abusive admins in the entire project has been consistently asking for more controls and looser restrictions on what they can do to editors in this review on behalf of AE (cough, cough...Sandstein). No one seems to be noticing or care about that but me and I'm tired of watching this joke of a review go through in secret while they try and grab more power.

The thing that really annoys me in all of this is that I know some of you agree that there are abusive admins who shouln't have the tools. Some of you have a couple in mind but you don't want to seem like you are targetting admins. Instead it seems you would rather seem weak on abuse and let the admins abuse the tools and run off editors than to do what needs to be done. Its really disappointing and you should be embarrased. Kumioko ( talk) 16:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make any such assumption and you don't know me very well if you think it does. If you have concrete proposals to make, please do so.   Roger Davies ^talk 18:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually Roger I believe you have the desire and intention to make this policy better and I believe that is your intent. I do not however feel that is how it will be used by some and I do think this change is going to make it easier for some to abuse the system. As mentioned above by myself and others there is wording here that gives the indication that this will be used to fasttrack editors out of the project. It says it keeps the current appeals process, which, for anyone who understands it, also knows it sucks. So keeping the appeals process in place for editors to use while making it easier to cast those editors out doesn't really help. Softer, gentler worded messages don't help when you make it so anyone can use them, then you log them so they are tracked and can later be used by anyone who wants to push their own POV or disagrees with the individual, then you create an alert that can be used to justify why they are being blocked...need I go on. Your a smart guy Roger so surely you can see how this system is just as abusive as the old one. If you don't do something about the admins and editors who are currently abusing the system and would continue to abuse the system with these new changes then your just paving a cow path or worse painting the cow path to look like its been paved. Kumioko ( talk) 18:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And your concrete proposals?   Roger Davies ^talk 18:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Roger I don't think anything would be done even if I spent the time to draft something. I'm not even trusted to be able to block vandals, protect a page or delete a copyvio article. Why would I beleive for a second anything I say would be taken seriously other than just commenting to raise awareness of the problem. If you want some specific proposals heres a couple; someone needs to act like a grown up and do something about the abusive admins, give it to the the bureau's, setup a committee, outsource it to India, I don't care, but something needs to be done. There is no way you can tell me that every one of the 1400+ admins is acting accordingly. That not one is using the tools abusively in your eyes? You could also revamp the appeals process by making it clearer and easier. Make it so the same people who are blocking aren't the same people denying the appeals. Sandstein and several others routinely deny every appeal because they beleive they are always right in their decision. The process is hopeless in the eyes of the accused. There are lots of things that could be done. How about a periodic review of the topic bans? How about a periodic review of the "discretionary sanctions"? YOu would be appalled at some of the actions being taken in the name of "broadly construed" if you bothered to look. But if the Arbcom didn't do anything about abusive admins and bad process before, there is nothing in this that makes me think this will change anything in the future. Unless the Arbcom is willing to stand behind this new change and enforce the miscreants who abuse it, there's no reason to do it. Kumioko ( talk) 18:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

How about getting rid of DS altogether and substituting page blocks when conflict on POV-pushing topics gets out of hand? I've made that concrete proposal at least four separate times now, and explained its advantages over the current DS system, which is hopelessly complex, open to abuse, and not good for Wikipedia per se or for Wikipedia's public image. I realize it's difficult for the arbitrators to abandon something which has been in place for years and to which they're very committed, even if it's a bad idea, so why not institute a trial use of page blocks? Start with one page on which DS have been imposed for some time but on which edit conflict has died down somewhat, remove DS for that page, and try page blocks. If it works out, expand the trial to other pages. Nothing could possibly be lost by doing that. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Nina, being candid, it's a terrible idea. Close down a page and they'll decamp to another one. Shut that down and they'll move to the next. Centuries-old ethno-religious-political disputes, which is typically what is under DS, and which have sometimes lead to actual reallife warfare, are simply not susceptible to fixing with short-term page blocks.   Roger Davies ^talk 21:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good points NinaGreen, They could also create an abuse filter kind of system where if a sanction is imposed on an editor, then a filter is setup for that editor. Then they wouldn't be able to break it. If the filter needs to be refined then that can be done as needed. For groups of editors they could make a page with a list of articles for X sanction and then the filter could use that list. Yes it would take a little effort and yes it may require some WMF developer time, but there are ways to make it work without having to hit the indef button. The culture here is to fast to block an editor and too fast to protect a page (often prior to any abuse). That's what we need to change. Not make the alerts kinder and gentler and the system easier to use for the admins who do the blocking. Kumioko ( talk) 20:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

So you're proposing hard-wired automatic topic bans. I can't see that flying with the community. Nor can I see it working. Nor can I see how that's an improvement over what we have.   Roger Davies ^talk 21:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

For largescale topic bans it probably wouldn't, but for individual bans where you ban one or 2 individuals from a topic it will and will reduce the chances of them getting sent back to AE to be banned, which what almost always happens, because the other party often times just stalks their edits (because admins are exempt from involved) and eventually they find a reason..."Broadly construed". In regards to Nina's idea you are making the assumption that every DS is due to largescale generation prejudice...Umm looking at the list of DS's imposed this only relates to a couple, the others are largely groups of editors who disagree on a topic. So, your argument is valid about 50%, the other 50% not so much. I also find it a little funny that you so quickly dismiss our ideas as not community passable when you hold this entire review in secret buried under the Arbcom pages where no one but Arbs and a few admin/arb wannabees watches. Perhaps letting the children see what the adults have been doing under the covers might invite some more comments? But perhaps that isn't what's wanted? Kumioko ( talk) 21:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly I agree with the original poster. While I appreciate the aims of DS, and the hard work User:Roger Davies is putting into this, I see DS as a shortcut to circumventing due process and due diligence. When it works as intended, that is a good thing. When it is abused, it is a great injustice, and I have seen too many good editors stitched up. Here again are my suggesting for improving the current dispute resolution process (see section below). All it does is strengthen what we already have. -- Iantresman ( talk) 22:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger Davies, for the response above. You wrote: Actually, Nina, being candid, it's a terrible idea. Close down a page and they'll decamp to another one. Shut that down and they'll move to the next. Centuries-old ethno-religious-political disputes, which is typically what is under DS, and which have sometimes lead to actual reallife warfare, are simply not susceptible to fixing with short-term page blocks. It's not a terrible idea. It's a good idea. The real-life conflicts can't be fixed with short-term page blocks, but Wikipedia conflict can be fixed with escalating page blocks. And if the editors decamp to another page, there's nothing wrong with putting the escalating page blocks on that page as well. It's a fast and effective solution, no matter how many pages they decamp to. I don't think the page blocks should be hard-wired. I think they should be imposed at the discretion of administrators who are keeping an eye on the 'temperature' of the pages in question, which is what administrators do at their discretion on other pages anyway, so it's nothing new. As I said above, why don't the arbitrators give it a try on a page in which the conflict has tamped down a bit already. Just suspend DS for that page and institute the page blocks on a trial basis, making certain that some experienced administrators keep an eye on the page. See how it works in practice. Nothing can be lost by trying the idea out. If it's successful on one page, try it on another. It may turn out that DS are not needed at all, that there is a better way. NinaGreen ( talk) 22:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think that any editor who received escalating page bans on more than one page, would receive automatic escalating topic bans, and then escalating project blocks. -- Iantresman ( talk) 23:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nina, alas we can't change the heart of the battle-doers, and since their existence is a fact of life here, your idea (at least as I understand it) would be abused by trying to get your side's version the one to be protected, and then game the system to keep it that way. It would also invite ogres to be obnoxious whenever protection is lifted, with a goal of driving away the kind of editors who do constructive work. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the two comments above. Iantresman wrote: I would think that any editor who received escalating page bans on more than one page. I'm not proposing that any individual editor would receive 'escalating page bans'. I'm simply proposing that experienced administrators, taking the 'temperature' of the conflict on a page, would simply shut the entire page down to all editing once the 'temperature' of the conflict got too high. Administrators step in all the time when they think things are getting out of hand, so administrators would be doing nothing new in exercising their discretion other than imposing a page block rather than singling out specific editors whom they consider to be the 'bad guys' of the moment. The initial page block could be for a week. If that didn't have a positive result, then administrators could escalate the page block to two or three weeks, and so on, as needed. NewsAndEventsGuy wrote: your idea (at least as I understand it) would be abused by trying to get your side's version the one to be protected. I don't think this fear is a realistic one. All these articles are pretty much written already, and what's going on is acrimonious tinkering which really adds nothing of value to Wikipedia. And come to think of it, when a page ban is imposed, perhaps the administrator who imposes it should automatically revert the last edit as part of the page block, to discourage any editor who might think it would be advantageous to have his last edit 'protected' by a page block. In any event, there's an easy way to find out how the idea would work in practice, and that's the one I've suggested. Identify a page on which DS were imposed some time ago and on which conflict has pretty much died down, remove the DS, put some experienced administrators on the job to monitor the page, and see what happens. Nothing can be lost by making the experiment. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@ NewsAndEventsGuy. I disagree. Editors end up "battling" when the proper course of action open to them has failed, or is unfair. The problem is systematic. I see many editors highlighting unfair practices, but they are rarely addressed. Then DS is brought it to make due diligence and due process LESS accountable and transparent. -- Iantresman ( talk) 09:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree, when looking at a lot of the Arbcom findings they almost always side with the admins, they only accept a case if the person is guilty, in many cases their determinations are so poorly written that 10 people would interpret them 9 different ways. Arbcom is a mess and has been for a while. Kumioko ( talk) 12:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nina, that's a particularly bad idea and I'll certainly oppose it, should it ever be proposed. First, discretionary sanctions do not only apply to entire articles; they also apply to sections of articles and across all namespaces, including talk pages and pages in the Wikipedia namespace, for instance. Imagine an editor disrupting an ANI thread concerning abortion. As things are right now, he can be sanctioned; according to your proposal, what should we do? Fully protect ANI (not that it would be a bad idea, all things considered, but that's only the cynic in me)? Also, your proposal would encourage people to edit war on already contentious articles, instead of trying to reach a consensus on the talk page, because both sides would hope that "their" version will be the one that gets locked in place; the editors on the "losing side" would then wait for protection to expire to revert the edits in question and so on ad libitum. Furthermore, by shutting down a page you're adopting an indiscriminate approach, which is inherently unfair when there is only one (or a limited number of) disruptive editor(s) (imagine someone who's trying to push his own POV on an article; that person needs to be removed from the topic, shutting down the article would serve no purpose except prevent anyone from making even uncontentious edits). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So what I'm hearing here Salvio is if your not an Arb, then your idea won't work. Its better to keep a bad policy and implement a workaround to keep the staus quo than to fix the policy. DS's are bad policy, they don't work, they cause more trouble than they fix and then when you factor in "broadly construed" it just makes matters worse because then any admin with a power trip can make the call on if the editor they don't like violated a poorly written sanction. Kumioko ( talk) 15:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What you should be hearing is that if you're not an Arb and you make what I consider a good proposal, I'll be glad to support it; if, on the other hand, you make what I consider a bad proposal (regardless of whether you're an Arb or not), I will oppose it. It's as simple as that.

Nina's proposal is among the worst I have ever heard, regardless of the person who made it. That said, I am not married to the current idea of discretionary sanctions and if a good proposal was made to substitute them with something better I'd certainly support it.

Finally, I also agree with you that DS are a powerful tool which may be misused (or even outright abused) by admins. For that, we should have a strong and independent system of review (which includes the power to enjoin admins from imposing discretionary sanctions or even to desysop them). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well at least we can agree that there should be a system in place to deal with those who abuse the system...which is currently lacking. Kumioko ( talk) 17:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Simply rejecting my proposal out of hand doesn't get us anywhere. I've suggested a small trial, which may demonstrate that it's a bad idea, but, on the other hand, may demonstrate that it's a really good idea - simple, effective, and not open to abuse against individual editors since it applies to all involved editors and merely prohibits editing until they get their act together. It seems to indicate an unhealthy state of affairs at Wikipedia when a small trial is rejected out of hand. Are we so locked into things on Wikipedia that we can't even make a small trial of something to see whether it works? NinaGreen ( talk) 20:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to you arranging such a trial. Please feel free. AGK [•] 21:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, AGK! How would I go about it? NinaGreen ( talk) 21:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's for you to decide :-). I'd offer to help, but other stuff keeps me too busy to take on such a large project… AGK [•] 01:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Administrators whose judgement at AE or with DS is consistently unreliable may be reported to WP:RFAR for remedial action. I therefore don't see how the system encourages administrator abuse: DS shortens the time it takes to deal with misconduct, but does not amend the other applicable provisions of WP:SYSOP. AGK [•] 21:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Right! you, me and everyone else all know that RFAR is a joke. No one uses it, no one watches it and in the offchance someone was actually submitted the likelihood is high that they would just be told to be nice. Even when Arbcom has obvious cases of admin abuse in cases they give them admonishment (except the occassional outlier which happens maybe 3 or 4 times a year). Even in cases of obvious abuse admins are free to do whatever they want and its generally only after months or years of a repeated pattern of abuse anything is even considered. So to tell me that they can be sent to RFAR is like telling me that Jimbo has the authority to overturn an Arbitration decision. My ideas and way of thinking may not always be correct or popular but please don't think I am an idiot. Kumioko ( talk) 21:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• The committee desysops administrators for cause on a fairly regular basis, not counting those that jump before they're pushed. I don't think you can reasonably say there are currently no methods for dealing with bad administrator misjudgement. You are either saying so, which is untrue, or that these methods do not apply to DS/AE, which is also untrue (see last point in section). AGK [•] 21:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• What I'm trying to say is that they don't work well. Sure you can pick a few cases that apply just to say they are working and sure there are methods, but it doesn't matter if the method is so complicated and long that no one wants to use them or have been shown repeatedly to be a waste of time. As for desysopping fairly regularly, I know of only 6 that got desysopped last year, 2 or 3 more that new they would be and gave them up and one that somehow made it through and then gave them up anyway. Of the ones who lost it a couple had it coming and at least 2 were a surprise and seemed to smack of trying to make it look good. They didn't do anything worse than others that have been "admonished" (which is really another word for slap on th wrist). That says nothing of the ones who routinely insult other editors, who block or protect abusively or who use their knowledge of the system to bait editors into the trap and then use the tools to block them, which happens quite a bit because admins are exempt from the policy of involved. So I guess we both have points being made here but our definitions of regular is different. It would seem regular to you is every couple months but IMO there is a lot more that needs to be done. Why is it that we have 1400 admins to actively patrol the project and stop editors from doing things but not one watches the admins? The answer is because if someone was watching the admins and had the authority to act, they would show that admins are fallible and the system would collapse. In order for an admin to get looked at they have to be submitted to Arbcom (which is a lengthy and painfully confusing process even for those of us that know how it works) or sent to RFAR (which never really worked). You cannot tell me that there is no benefit to having a group that watches the admins for abuse! I know better and so do you.

• My whole point in this discusion was to point out that Arbcom has the mandate to be the admin police (for lack of a better term), if you aren't interested in doing that to ensure this DS review (and other policies) aren't being abused like they were in the old system then don't bother implementing it. Its just another change for the sake of change and will only make things more confusing. Its better to have a bad system that doesn't work but is familiar than to replace it with a bad system that doesn't work but is unknown. Kumioko ( talk) 22:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I believe the problem here is that you interpret ArbCom's role slightly differently from the way AGK (and I, for that matter) does. If evidence that an administrator has seriously or repeatedly violated policy is presented, then he usually gets sanctioned (ArbCom, in its current incarnation, has already desysopped one admin, is about to desysop another and is currently admonishing a third one – yes, you consider admonishments useless, but, on the other hand, not all violations of policy committed by editors lead to blocks; sometimes, they just lead to warnings). However, we don't go around looking for cases and neither do we go around looking for evidence, for doing so would cast doubt on our neutrality, so we depend on the community to bring cases before us to have admins restricted or sanctioned. And that's the group supposed to watch the admins for abuse: the community. We have public logs for that very reason...

  Mind you, I'm not saying the system is perfect. It's not, certain processes are too complicated (though I wouldn't know how to simplify them without making them more prone to abuse) and probably various improvements could be attempted, but in my opinion it's not the far west you seem to think it is... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Salvio your just justifying bad decisions. I could offer a list of admins who have shown a pattern of bad conduct and bad decisions. Some have already passed through Arbcom. Certainly I am not advocating that every bad decision end in a desysopping. But when admins show repeated patterns of misconduct, that is justification and it shouldn't require a month long arbitrationto get rid of them. The admin tools need to be easy to get and easy to remove. Not one or the other...both. If admins screw up, they should have the tools taken away. If they repeatedly abuse editors then they need to be desysopped. If they violate policy repeatedly...same thing. They can reapply later. Also, if the community can be trusted to vote to support an editor to have the tools they should be able to vote to support them being removed. Not this current mentality of your good enough to give the tools but we can't trust you to take the away. That's just one of the absurd arguments to keep editors down and admins above. Its wrong, its stupid and is unfair. The biggest problem is the Arbcom, the people with the mandate and responsibility to take action refuse to do so unless someone take the time and go through the complication to do a month long arbitration case just so Arbcom can dismiss it, admonish the admin or just say its an isolated incident. Then the editor becomes a target. The Arbcom has made some good decisions but the problem is the bad ones are so bad they offset any good done by the good ones. Anyway, I've argued about this for the last couple years and no one cares so I'm just wasting time. When Wikipeda starts to fail though just remember that I tried for more than 3 years to fix the problems that are leading to its demise and you and the rest of the community just ignored me. But at least you can't say I didn't try and didn't care. Kumioko ( talk) 18:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I've had Arbitrators support personal attacks against me, and countless Admins who think WP:ASPERSIONS are as good as evidence. The system is flawed, and in my opinion fixable. It's telling that there is no will to try and implement some of the required changes. -- Iantresman ( talk) 20:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Replying to the original post If an editor has a problem with an admin and want to do something about it, they have to do the hard work: put the diffs together, find a second editor, and grind through an RFC/U. It will be difficult, no doubt. But one off potshots is not going to be effective, and expecting arbcom to make up a 'deal with Eric Cartman admins' policy out of whole cloth is unrealistic. NE Ent 00:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

My point is that removing the tools from an abusive admin should be no harder than giving them the tools. If the community has enough of a clue and trust to be able to vote to give them the set in a week with a % majority then it should be equally easy/hard to remove them. We shouldn't require our editors to be lawyers or waste 40 hours of effort to draft an Arbitration motion. Arbcom currently has the mandate to remove the tools from admins, if they don't want it, then that's fine, but right now the authority lies with them. I would personally prefer, at minimum, a mirror process to RFA where the community can vote no confidence or lack of trust or whatever you want to call it. Then the bureaus or Arbcom can review it and take action. Then Arbcom can focus on dealing with Arbitration cases. But of course the Arbcom and the admins will argue that the community of editors cannot be trusted with such awesome responsibility, which IMO, if the community cannot be trusted with that, then they shouldn't be trusted with the ability to give them the tools either. Whatever fix is decided on it should be obvious to anyone that the status quo won't do. Kumioko ( talk) 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be delighted if the community came up with a viable desysopping process; so far there's been no consensus and attempts have failed. But frankly this is way off-topic for the DS review soi could we wind this down please?   Roger Davies ^talk 01:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it fails, the admins won't allow it to pass. I agree its gotten off topic but the reason I started this discussion was because I don't think this DS review will fix anything unless the Arbcom is willing to hold admins accountable for violating policy. This review makes it easier to perform functions in DS for the admins against editors but it does nothing to make it easier to appeal or to deal with admins who deliberately use the system to their advantage Personally I think this DS is going to cause as much trouble as problems it fixes without these things in place. But since we all know that the DS system isn't designed to be fair or to be easily appealed by editors I guess I'm really just preaching to the chioir. I've been here long enough to know that. Kumioko ( talk) 01:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that this isn't resolved so adding the resolved tag is just another way for Arbcom to continue to ignore the problem. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away though, it makes the problem worse and it makes it metastasize into other areas...like editor retention and recruitment. Admittedly though I never expected anything to come out of this discussion anyway because that would require leadership and proactivity on the part of Arbcom and that is something that don't have and don't want. 108.48.100.44 ( talk) 15:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I see DS as circumventing due process and due diligence, which can be a bad thing when used inappropriately. Here are my suggesting for improving and strengthening the current dispute resolution process:

-- Iantresman ( talk) 22:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the details, Oppose the conclusion

'Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,

Though to walk near its edge was so pleasant;

But over its terrible edge there had slipped

A duke and full many a peasant.

So the people said something would have to be done,

But their projects did not at all tally;

Some said, “Put a fence around the edge of the cliff,”

Some, “An ambulance down in the valley.”

—  Opening to poem by Joseph Malins

We should invest more in Ians suggestions than we invest in DS because that would do a great deal to improve the fence, but that doesn't mean turning our back on DS entirely. IMO, the community still needs appropriate EMS & Rescue services (DS of some sort) because people still like to caper on the edge of the keyboard's precipice in questionable states of mind. Kumiko suggested a periodic review of topic bans and DS. I'm not sure what that means exactly, but it does seem reasonable to explore the details, whatever they are. Constructive whining-free thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have no objection to some Discretionary sanctions, but I'd like to see them as an integral part of the regular dispute resolution process. For example, why should Admins only be able to wield the DS axe? I know when someone is personally attacking another editor, as I am sure do other editors.
• What I'd like to see, for example, is that an editor can report a potential personal attack "doubly-anonymously" that is stripped of person information (ie of who reports it, and who made the alleged attack), and even the article in which it occurred, for assessment by a small number of editors (eg. three or five). Stripping personal information means that editors can't take sides. The system should then take the first three votes, eg. Upheld, dismissed, ambiguous. The system, and not editors, then decides whether there should be any sanctions, eg. Up to two warning, or an escalating page/topic/project ban. As an accountable double-whammy, an editor whose reports are repeatedly dismissed, may themselves be sanctioned for malicious intent, and again the system will handle this. This could be extended to other infractions, eg. reporting editors without diffs, etc -- Iantresman ( talk) 17:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for summarising your suggestions, Iantresman. Points 1–2, 5, 7–10 are all fair enough, but do not relate to discretionary sanctions; they are suggested improvements to Wikipedia in general. Please raise them on the appropriate policy talk pages.

  3: At Arbitration Enforcement (AE), unsubstantiated allegations are dismissed with a clear {{ hat}} note saying the complaint had no merit. This is good enough. Moreover, complainants who make unsubstantiated allegations often find themselves sanctioned.

  4: The current DS draft only authorises sanctions for policy violations or violations of existing general edit restrictions. No sanction can be given for something which is not disruptive.

  6: This is how things usually work on other topic areas. Discretionary sanctions exist because the usual working practices are not adequate; we are therefore unable to restrict administrative discretion in this way. (Please remember how troublesome some of these topic areas are.)

  11: Unwarranted sanctions can already be appealed, and I know of no case where a sanction was issued without diffs to back them up.

  12: No, this is not possible. The Arbitration Committee works en banc, for a number of good reasons.

  Hope this resolves your concerns. AGK [•] 11:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to look over the suggestions. Although you say that the first sets of points do not relate to DS, I would suggest that they do (certainly more directly than "broadly construed" is used). It is because basic policy is treated by many as optional, that we have DS.
• Your other comments, I find to have personally experience DS differently. In an ideal world, they would work exactly as you describe. In practice, just like basic policy, I have found that DS appear to be implemented in a manner that allows for a wide optional interpretation, with many examples of unsupported diffs, diffs not supplied, diffs not supplied on multiple requests, and non-policy violations being put forward as problems. -- Iantresman ( talk) 14:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If text about sensible DS procedures is not followed, that isn't a problem with the procedures but with the community; most of what you describe is a problem of ed behavior and the rest sounds like trigger happy admin action undertaken without carefully vetting the complaints (by sloppy eds). Assuming that is the state of our community's discipline, why would you expect any other process to function any differently? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I expect the community to put its own house in order before calling in the cavalry. -- Iantresman ( talk) 01:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Per my comment below. AGK [•] 01:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm starting a new section to highlight the problem entailed with the phrase 'broadly construed', which is routinely used in the imposition of 'Discretionary sanctions'. I've just been blocked for 48 hours for an alleged violation of a topic ban which used the same phrase 'broadly construed', so the example is instructive. My edit was made last August, and the issue arose because another editor ran across it a few days ago and deleted both the factual statement and the unquestionably reliable source which supported it. During an extensive discussion on the article Talk page, I added two more unquestionably reliable sources to the article in support of the factual statement, and a further eminently RS to the Talk page. The other editor added nothing to the article, and when he could not prevail on the facts, complained to WP:AIV that I had allegedly violated a topic ban. There was a lengthy discussion there in which I explained that the article itself was not covered by the topic ban, nor was my edit. The matter was then whisked off to WP:AE at [23]], and I was rapidly blocked for 48 hours. About 10 administrators rushed into the fray on the two last-mentioned forums, some of whom were baying for lengthy blocks. The 'evidence' put forward was framed in this way: 'Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare.' This is completely inaccurate. My edit, made last August, clearly refers to the relationship between a line in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit and an anonymous play published in 1595, The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York, as I explained at WP:AIV. My edit has nothing to do with Shakespeare, either per se or tangentially, and it most certainly had absolutely nothing to do with 'the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare'. However the administrators involved clearly lacked the subject matter expertise to know the difference, and I was thus blocked under a topic ban 'broadly misconstrued'. It was sufficient that the editor had alleged to WP:AIV that I had violated the topic ban; that was enough for about 10 administrators to conclude that I must have done so because they have no expertise in the subject matter involved, and simply can't tell the difference. I'm bringing it up here because, as I've mentioned here before, the use of the phrase 'broadly construed' in DS is a bad idea, both in terms of Wikipedia's public image, and in terms of the fact that administrators who are not involved in a particular subject area lack the expertise to determine whether an edit actually violates a topic ban 'broadly construed', which results in the injustices which have been complained of repeatedly by other editors elsewhere in this discussion. Wikipedia needs to get rid entirely of the phrase 'broadly construed' because it can't be administered fairly by administrators who lack expertise in the subject area. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC) That is a very detailed and accurate assessment of not only the problems with the language and implemenation of discretionary sanctions and broadly construed but of the overall admin culture on this site as well. DS's are abusive and the broadly construed language is even more so especially when put in the hands of admins who lack the time or desire to research the problem. AE is nothing but a bully board where they rarely take the time to do any research. They dole out draconian punishments for petty reasons and justify them with breaches of Arbitration sanctions. Frequently the discretion is so far off to the right or left its indistinguishable from the truth. If the Arbcom does not have the will, desire or mandate to follow up on discreationary sanctions and the use of broadly construed then they should not be using them. Many of the admins that use them most frequently use them abusively or just as bad without bothering to look into the matter in question at all. Kumioko ( talk) 19:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I suppose it's possible that there's an issue with arbs and admins lacking the expertise to judge "broadly construed," but yours is a terrible test case for it and I advise you to stop here. You know how they say hard cases make bad law? I'm going to riff on that and say "dumb cases make bad law." You didn't "allegedly" violate the topic ban, you were explicitly banned from Shakespeare and you edited text referring to Shakespeare and his plays. No better-informed arb or admin would have judged differently. If this is a subject worth discussing, find some cases where lack of arb or admin expertise has actually resulted in problems. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Roscelese, your comment is understandable because it was you who inaccurately stated at WP:AE the so-called 'evidence' (see above) in this way: 'Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare.' The four reliable sources I quoted make absolutely no claim that 'the pamphlet' Greene's Groatsworth of Wit 'might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare', and since the four RS I quoted make no such claim, obviously I didn't 'add info' making any such claim. Based on your complete misstatement of the so-called 'evidence', I was blocked for 48 hours. This is a perfect example of the problem mentioned in the subject header of this section: administrators lack the subject matter expertise to interpret topic bans 'broadly construed', and for that reason arbitrators should get rid of all topic bans broadly construed for DS as well as for individual editors. NinaGreen ( talk) 20:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I have to agree with NinaGreen, who was topic banned from "article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question". This is not the same as being topic banned from "article relating to the Shakespeare", otherwise it would have said so. But it seems that "broadly construed" means an admin can make any connections from one subject to another. I had a similar experience myself where the connection was so far removed, that it bordered on the farcical. It is troubling that flaws in the system are highlighted by several editors, and in my opinion are fixable, but there is no will to do so, suggesting that DS is not meant to improve the efficiency of the dispute resolution process, but to circumvent due process, due diligence, transparency and accountability. -- Iantresman ( talk) 00:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC) She was actually "topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed" (cf. Remedy).   Roger Davies talk 05:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC) This isn't about me, it's about the larger problem of how Wikipedia manages conflict, but I do have to say this about the ban, since you brought it up: prior to the arbitration I never made a single substantial edit on any article specifically dealing with the Shakespeare authorship question, I never made a single edit of any kind on Shakespeare, and I virtually created the entire Wikipedia biography on Edward de Vere, which was sourced throughout to reliable sources and is still largely intact on Wikipedia as I wrote it, which must mean that Wikipedia considers it an asset. Nonetheless I was banned entirely from editing on Wikipedia for two years (a ban which was not automatically lifted at the end of the two years!), and I was indefinitely topic-banned from editing in two areas in which I had never made a single substantial edit of any kind in a Wikipedia article and from a third area in which I had made a major contribution, and I'm still under that topic ban after three years have passed because when I attempted to have it lifted my application was abruptly cut off! This utterly bizarre state of affairs says a great deal about how Wikipedia manages conflict, and why it is experiencing problems retaining good editors. I'm interested in how the larger problem can be fixed, having had personal experience of the injustices which can result from it. It's not about me; it's about the larger problem. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I stand corrected, as evidenced by the notice here [24], though I note the sanction mentions articles relating, not articles and statement relating. Again, this ambiguity would not arise if the wording was better. WP:AC/DS itself point #4 notes "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous,", whereas the expression "Broadly construed" is not. -- Iantresman ( talk) 08:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 'Broadly construed' is understood as something we know when we see it, and does not seem to me to require exploration. Administrators lack the expertise to specify in advance what pages come under a topic area, which is why this phrase came into being; and for most cases even the most ignorant administrator can tell whether an article comes under a topic ban. AGK [•] 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC) AGK wrote: 'Broadly construed' is understood as something we know when we see it, and does not seem to me to require exploration...for most cases even the most ignorant administrator can tell whether an article comes under a topic ban'. Or maybe not. NewsAndEventsGuy mentions immediately below that an editor who was topic banned from all things "Tea Party" filed a motion asking for clarification as to whether he was prohibited from editing at Gun Control. Unfortunately NewsAndEventsGuy didn't spell out the result of that request for clarification, and I didn't find it, but I found another Tea Party related request to the arbitrators for clarification, and here's what an arbitrator, Beebelbrox, said: '‘This is where the "broadly construed" phrasing can get tricky’. So at one and the same time the phrase 'broadly construed' makes things so obvious that administrators at WP:AE 'know it when they see it', but the arbitrators themselves, when requested to clarify it in a particular request for clarification, consider the phrase 'broadly construed' to be 'tricky' [25]. Moreover if one reads all the arbitrator comments it seems the arbitrators themselves disagreed, and unless I misread the result, it seems the arbitrators didn't provide any definite clarification to the editor who had asked for it. The only way a topic ban can be enforced without dispute by administrators (and, for that matter, arbitrators) is if the specific Wikipedia articles on which the editor in question is forbidden to edit are listed in the ban. Think of all the conflict which could be avoided by that simple change to Wikipedia sanctions. Think also of all the administrator and arbitrator time which could be saved, and put to better use. WP:AE could likely be almost entirely eliminated, and arbitrators would not have to spend a single further minute dealing with clarification applications. (To forestall the usual objection: if, after an arbitration, problems developed with a topic-banned editor on additional Wikipedia articles related to the original topic ban, there could be an expedited procedure for adding the additional articles to that editor's existing topic ban. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I'll chime in to add that editors who really embrace the notion of collaboration here have every right to protest like angry bees over discussions like this, but once procedures are adopted, editors are expected to have the professionalism to work within them. Accordingly, not long ago, an editor was wondering if his ban from all things "Tea Party" prohibited him from editing at Gun control. Instead of creating chaos, this ed filed a motion for clarification to ask before editing. A lot is being said about admin abuse, but no so much about eds in a snit pushing limits. The ed I just talked about could have taken a chip on his shoulder and just gone ahead an edited, but nope! He respected the process and there was no stink. Contrast that to eds who push against sanctions in a state of being PO'd. I don't have anyone specifically in mind because I don't go for drama; I just want to edit in my controversial area with a reasonable WP:DR protocol for those who really want to collaborate in a civil manner. I don't know about the allegations of admin abuse, never having run into any of it, or the appeal process (same reason), but some method of admin review seems reasonable. We have some sort of appeal process (I know nothing since I try to avoid drama). Is it adequate? Beats me, I'm clueless. That's not why I am here. Obviously some eds here think it is "not" good enough. Ok, fine, but enough repetition already! This really doesn's seem like the best place to try to gain traction for your viewsrepeated mostly diff-less admin-bashing complaining. How about organizing your thoughts, supply diffs that paint the picture, and starting a thread about alleged admin abuse and your belief that we should revise the appeal or admin review process, and jumping on the village pump-stump? Maybe you're right and others will tell their version of the same story and I will be convinced. But this ain't really the best soapbox for disgruntled admin bashing, which is pretty much all I am hearing at this point. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC) In view of the comments just above from NewsAndEventsGuy, this is not about 'admin bashing'. This is about improving Wikipedia's process for handling conflict, and it's clear there's a great deal of room for improvement. Some time ago some arbitrators (I doubt any of them were the current arbitrators) decided that (1) discretionary sanctions were a good idea (2) the wording 'broadly construed, with respect to both discretionary sanctions and topic bans was a good idea (3) indefinite blocks were a good idea. In fact, all three of these are terrible ideas. Instead of decreasing arbitrator and administrator workload, they increase it in practice. They decrease editor retention, and I suspect that if the matter were looked into they disproportionately decrease the retention of good editors, the very type Wikipedia is trying to attract. They enormously increase feelings of unjust treatment among editors. Since the current arbitrators aren't the ones responsible for these three terrible ideas, they have nothing invested in them, and the best thing the current arbitrators could do for Wikipedia itself and for its public image is to (1) eliminate completely from every existing and future sanction the phrase 'broadly construed' (2) eliminate completely indefinite blocks, and impose a maximum limit of two years on any block, after which it would expire (3) eliminate discretionary sanctions altogether, and replace them with a system of escalating page blocks together with the usual administrator enforcement procedures. It's regrettable that there's no existing mechanism by which these proposals could be brought to the attention of the entire Wikipedia community. I'm pretty sure they'd receive overwhelming support. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Nina writes "My edit, made last August, clearly refers to the relationship between a line in Greene's Groatsworth of Wit and an anonymous play published in 1595, The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York, as I explained at WP:AIV. My edit has nothing to do with Shakespeare, either per se or tangentially." This statement is, frankly preposterous. Its transparent disingenuousness is one reason why Nina needs to be topic banned from this area. She is incapable of straightforward and sincere discussion of the issues, which makes engagement with her stressful in the extreme. Read any book on Shakespeare, and you will see that the True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York is the title under which the play later known as Henry VI, part 3 was first published. Here's Park Honan, writing in 1999, "On the road Pembroke's men constructed brief texts of his 2 and 3 Henry VI. These scripts, in due course, they were forced to sell as The First Part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster and The true Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke. Shakespeare's own scripts with their large casts would have been difficult for any company to take on the road" (Shakespeare: A Life, p.144) Stanley Wells refers to the play as "The true tragedy of Richard, Duke of York (3 Henry VI)". Nina is not some naive newbie stumbling into an area they are unfamiliar with and making mistakes. She has been writing about this topic for over 30 years. And even if we were to accept her sophistical argument that she did not break the ban because she didn't refer directly to Shakespeare, how does she explain this edit in which she created a whole new section to the article which she entitled "Retaliation by Shakespeare"? [26]. In fact Nina has violated the edit ban several times before [27]. No-one has reported her, because these were innocent edits. This situation was a problem because Nina was clearly creating a false impression of scholarship by her edits, was edit-warring and ignoring the views of two editors who opposed her, editors whose views have been supported by every other independent editor who has looked at the page, and who has some knowledge of the issues. Nina is an extremely productive editor when she is creating biographies of 16th-17th century persons, her principal activity, but she cannot engage with other editors when disputes deal with issues of interpretation and scholarly consensus. Contrary to her section heading, it is those who do know the subject matter who can tell when she is being tendentious, as in this case. Paul B ( talk) 19:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC) As Roger wrote above, she is topic banned "broadly construed" from articles relating to Shakespeare. That means any admin is free to use their own discretion to block her for any duration they feel is warranted if she edits an article relating to shakespeare; an article about someone who acted in a shakespeare work; anyone who has read his books or plays or even anyone who is even remotely related to the topic. No admin determination is too far fetched for the broadly construed wording. If someone stayed that night in the same place Shakespeare spent the night and she edits the article she should be blocked. If you want some advice, once a topic ban has been put in place its only a matter of time before they find a reason to ban Nina for good. Sanctions and topic bans are Arbcom's way of saying we don't really have enough evidence to kick you off the site yet so we are going to give you a sanction that is worded so broadly and poorly that it will be impossible to follow. Then we are going to allow any of the 1400+ admins use their own individual discretion and without question on if you followed your sanction. Then we can come back and say we tried to let you edit and you failed so now you have to leave. Virtually everyone who is sanctioned gets blocked. With only a couple exceptions in the history of the site they all get blocked or they just leave. Sanctions are a joke and so is the Arbcom. 108.48.100.44 ( talk) 15:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Great insight into the overarching conspiracy between ArbCom and administrators to ban NinaGreen from Wikipedia for absolutely no reason, IP. Why you don't use your main account to post these gems, so you can take full credit for them? Bishonen | talk 16:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC). Its not worth my time to login. Besides that I scrambled the password and locked it. As for your comments, don't believe me, virtually everyone with a sanction excepts admins are eventually banned from the site. Sometimes it takes a while, but that's almost always the result. Of course there are a few that don't but most of those are admins who are generally exempt from policy. As you know I used to be a strong supporter of the project but now the project has become a joke because of gross mismanagement, abuse and a lack of trust in its editors. Those are increasing the lack of trust in this project from the readers. I'm sick of trying to change it because no one wants to do anything to make this place better. They just want to keep the editors down and hold onto whatever petty power they have. Too few are interested in building an encyclopedia anymore so doing anything except making an occassional comment is no longer worth my time and I don't need an account to do that. I am just the latest in a series of editors who beleieved in the project, who wanted to help improve it but were run off the site by others who want to be in control. 108.48.100.44 ( talk) 16:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC) "That means any admin is free to use their own discretion to block her for any duration they feel is warranted if she edits an article relating to shakespeare; an article about someone who acted in a shakespeare work; anyone who has read his books or plays". No, it doesn't mean that. It could do, if admins acted like wikilawyers and backed each other up in such behaviour, but they don't. Nina could have been banned from Wikipedia long ago if that approach were adopted. And yet she's been happily creating articles on contemporaries of Shakespeare for years. As I already pointed out, she has also made several edits that directly violated the topic ban. And yet nothing happened to her. If there was any such plot she could have been "got at" years ago. The "broadly construed" phrase is designed to give reasonable discretion to admins, not to create excuses to catch-out "offenders". If the community just wanted to ban people, they could do that anyway, without the need for such tricks. It may be true that "virtually everyone who is sanctioned" gets blocked or leaves. If so, that's because the behaviour that led to the sanction persists. POV warriors will be banned or leave if their sole reason for being here is effectively thwarted by the community. Paul B ( talk) 16:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC) The broadly construed language was designed to do what you said by people who believe how it should be used and why it was added. The problem is that is not how it works in practice and no one cares to do anything about the abusive admins who are abusing the use of it. There are only a handful of admins who abuse it but these are the same admins that frequently work around AE and dole out the blocks. Admins frequently use draconian measures to block using the broadly construed logic. Several admins have been caught abusing admin tools and nothing happened. They just continue to abuse the tools and the DS policy. Certainly some good has come out of DS's and the broadly construed language because I know why it was added and by whom. I also know that it has brought just as many if not more problems than it resolved. Anyone who doesn't think so doesn't know the full picture of the way things were and how they are now. Some are the same problems that caused it to be added in the first place. Broadly construed is and always has been an excuse used for some admins to use their power with no repercussions. There are so many rules and policies here (many of which are unneeded) that we all, ever one of us, violate one on occasion. So if we go looking for a reason to block we'll find one. DS's and broadly construed gives them an excuse. This DS review is going to be a failure because the Arbcom, good intentions aside, has no intention of dealing with Admins who abuse it. They would rather lose 1000 editors than 1 admin and that is why this site is failing to keep and recruit editors. Abuse by a minority of its members and a complete lack of trust throughout the community. You seem like a sensible guy Paul but you don't know the whole story here. 108.48.100.44 ( talk) 19:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC) All this amounts to is "bad admins do bad things". Well, people are people, and no system that's not purely mechanistic is going to alter that fact. If you allow human judgement, human frailties will also become an issue. All the moire reason to rely consensus, to be open and accountable, and to offer appeals. Paul B ( talk) 19:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Yes, people make mistakes and that is understandable. But when the same people make the same mistakes repeatedly or use their access abusively and nothing is done, then that is a problem with the system. All I a saying is that when the admins act abusively or are seen to abuse the tools in a repeated manner then something should be done. Not ignore the problem or enable them to continue. The problem is this current system favors the admins and enables abusive behavior by fostering a culture where admins are allowed to do whatever they want with no repercussions. The admins know this and they know it takes an Arbcom hearing to remove the tools. Which takes a lot of time, is complicated and generally doesn't penalize admins except on rare exceptional cases. 108.48.100.44 ( talk) 20:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Bishonen wrote in jest: 'Great insight into the overarching conspiracy between ArbCom and administrators to ban NinaGreen from Wikipedia for absolutely no reason, IP'. Actually, the IP editor summed it up well above. I'm not editing at all right now because although absolutely no edit to an article I've ever made on Wikipedia had anything to do with putting forward a particular POV on the Shakespeare authorship issue (anyone who doubts this is free to find one to disprove my statement), I feel 1000 administrator eyes are watching me right now, just waiting for me to slip up, no matter what I edit. But I again emphasize, I didn't add this section to talk about my situation. I added it because my situation demonstrates in spades (see my response to Rosclese above) why the words 'broadly construed' should be dropped from all sanctions because administrators lack the subject matter expertise to interpret the phrase 'broadly construed'. The phrase 'broadly construed' is unnecessary, and is making Wikipedia a very frustrating place for editors who are actually building the encyclopedia to do their work. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The meaning of "broadly construed" is self-evident; as explained by Paul B., the phrase has not been mis-implemented. It is a both theoretically and practically sound way of making discretionary sanctions actually discretionary, and fit for purpose. Also, this review is not about any individual editor's sanctions – particularly when, as in this case, the editor misunderstands or misrepresents how their sanction has actually been implemented. There is nothing for us to consider here. AGK [•] 01:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted). 108.48.100.44 ( talk) 01:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC) —Rant/personal attack/conspiracy theory redacted. AGK [•] 12:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you collapsed that section, AGK, because 'broadly construed' is not self-evident. The section you collapsed contained an example of the arbitrators themselves calling 'broadly construed' 'tricky' to interpret, and being unable to agree, even among themselves, as to how it applied in a particular case. A very real problem has been identified here. Why not deal with it? The solution is a simple one. Eliminate the phrase. Nothing which could result from eliminating the phrase could possibly take up as much arbitrator and administrator time as is now wasted in dealing with the fall-out (enforcement, appeals, applications for clarifications etc.) which result from use of the phrase 'broadly construed'. NinaGreen ( talk) 22:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

At the beginning of this process we were told "all comments are welcome." Is that no longer the case? If the intent is only to accept comments the committee (or perhaps just AGK?) agrees with, it seems like a somewhat pointless exercise. NE Ent 02:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

(Please don't suggest I hold fringe views on what is agreeable, or that I am abusing my position to force an agenda on this review.) The collapsed comments are repeating earlier ones, and it is incumbent on us to tell the people making the comments that they are wasting their time. AGK [•] 12:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's becoming quite clear that they are wasting their time as ArbCom, and specifically you, seem unwilling to listen to anyone that disagrees with them. Well at least that's the impression I've got from keeping half an eye on this page and just skimming it and whether that's the right impression or nor it's not a good impression to be giving. And I also don't think the comments you redacted are in any way a personal attack, at least in the Wikipedia meaning of the phrase, and I think it shows poor judgement on your part as you're clearly involved given the 'attacks' were on you. Dpmuk ( talk) 14:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If the Arbcom doesn't want comments and intends to follow their own agenda then that's their decision and they shouldn't even ask for comments in the future. Its bad enough they buried this discussion so people wouldn't find it unless they knew it was here. But no one is wasting Arbcom's time unless they aren't interested in hearing comments which seems apparent at this point given their dismissiveness and deletion of the comment I made above. This section was started requesting the Arbcom to add something to the review saying admins will be held accountable if caught abusing the system like they have done in the past If the Arbcom cares about dealing with abusive admins, which it seems they don't and they are more interested in silencing editors who have a problem with abusive admins, then that's too bad and extremely disappointing (although not surprising). Maybe if they got off their collective butts and started to deal with admin abuse people would be leaving the site in droves and they would start editing again. Since I no longer believe that the project is their interest and they no longer think its their responsibility to deal with abusive admins, there is no reason to continue to comment. Because if Arbcom doesn't care about abusive admins, and I know that they know they exist, then that means they don't care about the project or the community. 108.48.100.44 ( talk) 16:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to start basing your comments in reality, IP. AGK [•] 16:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP is apparently User:KumiokoCleanStart (see [28]).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter who I am and yes I locked and abandoned that account for the final time and I don't intend to continue editing at all soon. Secondly, @AGK, just because you don't agree doesn't mean its not true. You may well believe this is beneficial but there are admins who will abuse it and I think you know this. The problem is nothing is done about abusive admins now, so making it easier for them to be abusive without addressing the problem isn't going to help. Its also pretty obvious at this point that Arbcom is going to do whatever they want to do regardless of the comments. So offering evidence isn't going to matter, it will still just be ignored. Besides that, I know that you already know who some of these abusive admins are and no one has done anything about them yet, so no reason to think the issue will be addressed anytime soon in the future either. 108.48.100.44 ( talk) 16:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Dpmuk, I hate to say it, but you give me the impression of having completely ignored what I just said. AGK [•] 16:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In what way? I've looked at this a couple of times since you made that comment and can't work out what you are referring to. Dpmuk ( talk) 02:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So much dissatisfaction has come to light in the course of this review of DS, and so many problems have been highlighted which need fixing, that I'm going to float the idea that the time is ripe for an independent review of all Wikipedia policies re sanctions, to find out how things are actually working out in practice, and to make suggestions for needed changes. It probably doesn't seem strange to those who have been with Wikipedia a long time that the only formal structure within Wikipedia is a 'punishment' structure, i.e. 15 arbitrators (ArbCom) and 1400 administrators who dole out and enforce punishments, but it certainly seems strange to newcomers and to the world outside Wikipedia. It probably also doesn't seem strange to those who have been with Wikipedia a long time that there are thousands of editors under indefinite bans which will never be reviewed, that there are an untold number of Wikipedia pages under discretionary sanctions (DS) 'broadly construed' which will never be reviewed, that the appeal process for bans and blocks is so hopelessly complicated that most editors can't even figure out how to use it, etc. etc., but all these things certainly seem very strange to newcomers and to the world outside Wikipedia. Something is seriously broken here, and rather than try to assign blame, why not have an independent review of all Wikipedia policies re sanctions, and make the necessary changes? It seems self-evident that no ban or block should ever be indefinite; that no ban should ever be for a period longer than two years, after which time it should automatically expire; that the topics against which DS have been imposed should be up for scheduled review after a fixed period of time; that the term 'broadly construed' should be removed from all sanctions, and instead specific Wikipedia articles should be identified in the sanctions; that Wikipedia cannot possibly need as many as 1400 administrators; that appeals of decisions by the arbitrators should be to some group other than the arbitrators who made the decisions(!); that a swarm of 10 administrators should not descend on a single complaint to WP:AIV, but that complaints, as they come in, should be assigned to a single administrator on a rotating basis etc. etc. The Wikipedia Foundation (I assume) could provide the funds for this independent review to take place. It should certainly not be done by anyone with even the remotest connection to Wikipedia. Outsiders who can be completely objective are needed. NinaGreen ( talk) 03:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree that a review of policies and sanctions is needed but I think both are a seperate problem that need to be dealt with seperately. I would suggest starting by setting up a working group to go through the sanctions and potentially the indefinate blocks to see which ones are no longer valid or should be loosened. It has been noted in several venues that many are outdates and OBE. Likewise many of the policies need to be clarified and rewritten to be clearer. Some aren't needed anymore at all and others can be merged. Unfortunately there is little interest to do any of that here in Wikipedia. Its been my experience that the editors here would rather deal with the problems of the existing system because they are known than to attempt to change things and make them better, potentially creating new problems. To me though change is needed and necessary if the project is going to survive. Editing has become complicated and cumborsome. People just aren't joining or staying like they use to because editing is drama prone largely do to the wishy washy policies we haev and inconsistent adherance to them. Adding to that the frequent disregard of policy shown by admins and then no one doing anything about it. Its more than time to start to fix the mess. 138.162.8.59 ( talk) 14:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, IP. I agree that 'change is needed and necessary if the project is going to survive', and the reason I suggested an independent outside review of all Wikipedia policies involving sanctions is that (1) although every major organization today has a 'stop, start, continue' process in place for automatic review of policies, projects and procedures, Wikipedia doesn't have one, and (2) the will to do something about the problem within Wikipedia seems to be totally lacking. If the will to do something about the problem did exist within Wikipedia, I agree that one place to start would be with the thousands of existing indefinite blocks, but going through them would probably take an enormous amount of time, and wouldn't likely meet anyone's standards of objectivity. An easier way would be for ArbCom to just lift all indefinite blocks which have been in place for longer than five years (which is a very long time, when objectively considered!) and see what happens. Probably nothing much at all would happen. If nothing much happened, then all indefinite blocks which have been in place for more than two years could be lifted (which again is a long time, objectively considered). Again, probably nothing much would happen. If nothing much happened, then all remaining indefinite blocks could be converted to blocks which would automatically expire two years after the date on which they were originally put in place. This simple fix for an enormous problem would require almost no administrative time. But the will to do something easy like this to eliminate a real problem seems to be lacking, which is why an independent outside review is necessary to kick-start the process. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually IMO most of the Indef blocks could be done by a bot with certain exceptions such as sockpuppeteers and copyvios. If it was made more than 3 years ago then its probably not needed. We could probably factor out a number of those that have occurred in the last year as valid pretty quickly. Then we can manually look at the rest. I agree that Wikipedia lacks oversight, it always has been over the last couple years the wild west has become more and more in the favor of the admins who seem to act more like Judge Dredd. We need to focus some attention on the core policies and rewrite them with the same attention and detail as is done for the FA's. Its been documented that three of the major problems with Wikipedia is the complication of policies, the violent and unfair nature of the editing culture and the general hatred the community has for IP editors. Every time I edit for example I haev to type in a capcha which should only happen when I am adding or removing a reference. Yet, I get them all the time because the community and the WMF want to make it hard for IP's to edit so as to encourage them to create usernames. Then they can be tracked easier and if necessary marked as a sockpuppet because they have edited as an IP and then banned forever. Wikipedia claims to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit but the truth is far from that to almost anyone except those who already edit here every day. I also agree the community has Zero will to do anything to fix any of the problems. Sure they complain and say they want to make things better but then they say every idea is a bad one and denigrate anyone who tries to fix things. 138.162.8.59 ( talk) 19:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if I had my way, I wouldn't allow editing of pages by IP editors, and I don't think that there is a "special hatred" for IP editors, but that there are reasons why unregistered editors make it harder to control various issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If I had my way, I wouldn't allow any anonymous editors. Editors should be proud of their contributions and behavior -- Iantresman ( talk) 22:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is very far outside the scope of this review, and would be better raised elsewhere. AGK [•] 01:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes - perhaps NinaGreen should just start an off-wiki blog instead. Blogs are good places for personal venting. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

They are also good for advocacy of fringe scholarship, such as theories on the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon and Roscelese, why the hostility? You haven't identified a single substantive edit to an article I've ever made on Wikipedia which has ever advocated anything concerning the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. The fact is, I've never made one. You will not find one in the arbitration, or anywhere on Wikipedia. They don't exist. My 28,000 edits and somewhere in the range of 50 DYK's on Wikipedia speak for themselves. They are not about the authorship issue. But it seems you're unwilling to look at the facts. NinaGreen ( talk) 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It isn't clear that this possibly annual review has accomplished anything. My thought is that the current version of discretionary sanctions, while not perfect, may be the least imperfect solution to deeply conflicted editorial issues in an imperfect world. The inputs that I have seen appear to be partly from the usual anti-admin brigade, whose view appears to be that admin abuse is the biggest single problem that Wikipedia has, and that administrators are bullies who interfere with the misunderstood "excellent content creators". (I have the possibly eccentric view that, to the contrary, there isn't enough admin action against incivility, and that the anti-admin brigade makes enforcement of civility difficult, but my view is worth only what you paid for it.) I have also seen inputs proposing a different approach to conflict areas that doesn't involve discretionary sanctions, such as roving page blocks. I will comment on one of the reasons for discretionary sanctions. There are known to be a "draconian" remedy for areas why lesser remedies have failed. I will point out, on the one hand, the phrase "edit war" is normally used as a metaphor. However, discretionary sanctions are used, among other reasons, to partially isolate Wikipedia editing from spillover from real wars, armed conflicts in which lives have been or are being lost. Less drastic approaches to "edit wars" spilling over from real wars have been tried and have not worked. (Other areas in which discretionary sanctions are used include fringe science, where the proponents of a fringe approach to medicine and the opponents of a fringe approach to medicine both believe that lives are at stake.) I haven't seen a specific case made for improvements to discretionary sanctions or a specific case that there is a better approach to conflict areas than discretionary sanctions. Maybe this possibly annual review has had the slightly useful purpose of providing an area for embittered editors to vent. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robert. As you do not mention them in your very thoughtful, considered comment, you may not be aware of the swathes of clarification requests recently received by the committee about ambiguities in the discretionary sanctions small print. This review primarily set out to resolve those. AGK [•] 22:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, you write that: 'I haven't seen a specific case made for improvements to discretionary sanctions or a specific case that there is a better approach to conflict areas than discretionary sanctions'. I've made the case, and offered the solutions, several times already during this discussion. There is no need for DS. They're a terrible idea, as exemplified by AGK's comment above that there have been swathes of requests for clarification of 'ambiguities in the DS small print', but also, as I've mentioned above, clarification requests from editors affected by them who don't know which pages they can edit on. AGK has made it clear that there is a 'specific case for improvements to DS', as have I, and as have others during the course of this discussion. They aren't working. As for the 'better approach', there is a fast and easy fix as a replacement for DS. The first step is identification in the sanction itself of the precise Wikipedia articles which, in the course of an arbitration have given rise to the problem. Usually it's only a handful of Wikipedia articles; often it's only one. The article or articles should be named and clearly identified in the sanction which results from the arbitration, and there should be a notice put on the article or articles in question that as a result of an arbitration they are now subject to escalating page blocks. As I said before, most of these conflict-ridden Wikipedia articles, which merely reflect sincere differences of opinion in the real world, are already substantially written, and because of that, nothing would be lost even if they were subjected to a permanent page block (which I'm not advocating, by the way). There is no need for inches of ground to be fought over day after day in these Wikipedia articles, just as mere yards of ground were won and lost for four years with tremendous human losses on both sides in the First World War. If people just can't edit those articles peaceably, absolutely nothing would be lost by putting escalating page blocks in place and leaving the articles substantially as they now are. Wikipedia users would get just as much out of the articles that way as they now do when the articles are constantly changing by tiny controversial increments on a daily basis. This solution is fast, and it's easy. It would solve the problem, and free up a ton of arbitrator and administrator time, as well as rid Wikipedia of a vast amount of editor conflict. What's not to like? NinaGreen ( talk) 01:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I left a message on each of the arbitrators' Talk pages yesterday (aside from AGK and Roger Davies, who have commented from time to time already), just to ensure that all the other arbitrators are aware of the request that they drop a note here indicating that they have familiarized themselves with the serious problems which have been identified with DS by numerous editors during this review, and the quick and easy solutions which have been proposed for their solution, as well as the benefits which would result to Wikipedia from the adoption of those solutions. In particular all the arbitrators need to be aware of the attention which has been drawn on this page to the fact that the arbitrators themselves, when requested to apply the phrase 'broadly construed' in a particular request for clarification, considered the phrase 'broadly construed' to be 'tricky' and were unable to agree as to how it should be applied in that case [29]; many additional cases could likely be found demonstrating that even the arbitrators cannot agree on the application of 'broadly construed' in particular cases. The phrase should be eliminated from all sanctions; however nothing will ever change unless all the arbitrators are aware of the serious problems with DS which have been identified during this review by many different editors. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware and have been watching. I'm largely deferring to other arbs on the matter. I am relatively unfamiliar with the DS process, and I generally agree with comments made by Roger Davies. NativeForeigner ^Talk

Unfortunately most stopped commenting when they weren't hearing what they wanted. That's the problem with burying these types of chanegs though. It prevents people on both sides of the argument from commenting. If the Arbcom is just going to ignore comments and do what they want they may as well not even bother with asking for comments as they did above. I also suspect you have an opinion on the matter even if you aren't terribly familiar. As an Arb these come up quite a bit, now might be a good time to get familiar with them. 138.162.8.59 ( talk) 22:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reply, NativeForeigner. However your admission that you're 'relatively unfamiliar with the DS process' and that you're 'largely deferring to other arbs' is shocking. DS are a huge part of Wikipedia, and have been imposed by ArbCom on literally thousands of Wikipedia articles and editors through the use of the phrase 'broadly construed'. Many many editors (among whom there have to have been some good ones!) have been punished by DS, and lost to Wikipedia. It's now even more abundantly evident than it was before that a thorough review by the Wikipedia community of the entire thinking behind DS is needed, unless the arbitrators are prepared to tackle the needed reforms themselves. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not shocking at all. NF has been in post for only a few weeks and we have a welter of things on at the moment. The pace of this review is deliberately slow to allow arbitrators the time they need to get fully up to speed.   Roger Davies ^talk 12:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar insofar as that I know how they work. I know what is done to enforce them. But I"ve never enforced a sanction, and I did post my thoughts earlier, if I recall correctly, on some specific proposals. Specifically to this case your suggestions are not simple. DS, as you admit, are a huge part of wikipedia and are used in a broad set of circumstances. How broadly construed is interpreted varies wildly. I have been looking into DS, but to say that I have experience with DS would be patently false. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Not even close. (To being "a huge part"). affected areas runs maybe 31 entries (depending on how you count overlapping areas.). Let's conservatively assume admins "broadly construe" 1,000 articles per area, for 31,000. Divide by 6,818,123 number of articles and we get DS being about 0.7%. (That's not to say DS is not a huge amount of what gets dumped on Arbcom). NE Ent 02:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose important/impactful would be more fitting. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have checked up on this page from time to time. I can't say that I agree with you that your suggestions are quick, easy, or effective, in theory or in possible practice. I would also say that you may have a distorted view of both the problems of AE and have conflated your experiences with that of the general editing community (the vast majority of editors, even those who edit on DS pages, never end up in the arbitration wheelhouse.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 14:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What David said. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I generally read changes to the page, yes. Indeed, I think I've even made a suggestion somewhere above. Discretionary sanctions is not an area I generally focus my time, which is why I didn't work in DS in the first place. I do understand it's importance in repercussions of decisions I'm part of though, which is why I've done my best to keep up to date on the comments. Overall though, I don't feel I've much to add, so have kept relatively quiet. Worm^TT( talk) 14:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much to the arbitrators who have responded so far. Hopefully we'll hear from the rest of the arbitrators as well. The first step to the needed changes is that all the arbitrators, as those who can actually make the changes, be aware of the problems and the quick and easy solutions to them, as well as the benefits those quick and easy solutions will bring about for Wikipedia. David Fuchs wrote: 'I would also say that you may have a distorted view of both the problems of AE and have conflated your experiences with that of the general editing community'. I don't think so. The fact that this review took place at all, as AGK pointed out, is that there has been a swathe of applications for clarification of the DS process. That alone indicates how flawed it is. The fact that this DS review has spawned so much discussion (apart from the issues I've raised) is also clear evidence that the process is far too complicated to ever be fixed or to work properly without causing injustice. Worm That Turned wrote: 'Discretionary sanctions is not an area I generally focus my time'. As with NativeForeigner's comment, this is shocking. DS are a huge part of Wikipedia, affecting countless articles because their application is so 'broadly construed' and vague, and it's becoming clear that perhaps the majority of the arbitrators who routinely impose DS are not up to speed on them. It's also clear, from the application for clarification of DS on Tea Party pages I quoted elsewhere on this page that the arbitrators themselves consider the phrase 'broadly construed' to be 'tricky', and that the arbitrators themselves couldn't agree on its interpretation in that case. When one considers that the arbitrators themselves are not up to speed on DS, consider their application 'tricky', and can't even agree among themselves on their interpretation, there's obviously a real problem here. This is not stated to fault the arbitrators. It's stated to demonstrate that DS are flawed, and need to be replaced with something less complicated which everyone, from the arbitrators on down, can easily understand and implement fairly. Worm That Turned also wrote: 'I can't say that I agree with you that your suggestions are quick, easy, or effective'. Why not? It's a simple matter to say 'I don't agree'. But the real issue is: What are the reasons my suggestions won't work? Why aren't they better than the current DS process? I think they are. No-one has yet offered convincing arguments here as to why each of my suggestions allegedly won't work. I think the key to the problem is a question I brought up long ago in this discussion: Why were DS imposed in the first place? I asked that the rationale for them be placed on the project page, but that's never happened. An IP editor stated earlier on this page that he knew who first imposed DS, and why, but he didn't spell out any details. If we could actually find out the answer to that question, we'd have a starting point for a discussion as to whether there are better alternatives. One can't decide whether something is better or worse than an alternative without knowing why it was originally put in place. What's the original rationale for DS? Why DS rather than something else? NinaGreen ( talk) 17:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nina, firstly, you appear to be confusing me with David Fuchs, for at least part of your comment. Secondly, I really must disagree with you about the scope of the ramifications here. Overall, there's been a total of 460 odd Arbitration cases - and only about 50 in the past 5 years. Given the number that actually resulted in discretionary sanctions is far fewer, I personally think we're talking about a few thousand articles and perhaps a few hundred editors. I'm not saying we shouldn't be taking care over this, but the idea that every arbcom member should be making this their top priority and that we should have all been completely focussed on it prior to their terms just doesn't follow. The committee comes from a diverse background and have different priorities, as it should be.

As to your question, I'd honestly turn it on its head. Why don't we have discretionary sanctions across the encyclopedia? I would see things as much better if uninvolved administrators could topic ban a user, or even page ban them. At the moment, administrators have only a limited number of tools - and you know the saying about "if your only tool is a hammer". We trust the judgement of uninvolved administrators to find the best path to improve the situation - that's what discretionary sanctions are about and that's why they're needed Worm^TT( talk) 10:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• While it's undeniably useful to hear the perspective of editors who have been sanctioned at WP:AE, this page has been overrun and now consists of little beyond complaints from sanctioned editors, often focusing on the particulars of their case rather than any broader issues. We're lacking any substantive input from various stakeholders (AE admins, constructive/unsanctioned editors in DS topic areas, etc.), and we're left with a very one-sided and incomplete perspective consisting almost entirely of complaints from self-styled victims of the process. As a result, I don't think this effort is going in a useful direction. MastCell  ^Talk 20:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

See the proposal below, MastCell. This isn't about individual editors; this is about fixing a big problem. What do you think of the proposal below? Why wouldn't it be a better solution for Wikipedia than DS? NinaGreen ( talk) 20:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Replacement of discretionary sanctions (DS) starts with acceptance of the reality that the conflict-prone articles on Wikipedia are already sufficiently complete and the editing which is currently going on is essentially POV-driven tinkering, and that there would therefore be no substantial loss to Wikipedia users from the imposition of escalating page blocks. Once that reality is accepted, i.e. that escalating page blocks would not be a detriment to Wikipedia users (Wikipedia users being what Wikipedia is all about, after all), implementation of the page blocks is a simple process. Firstly, the arbitrators would go back through previous arbitrations which resulted in DS to identify the articles which gave rise to the arbitration (not the editors; the articles). I suspect that most arbitrations which resulted in DS arose from conflict on only a single Wikipedia article, or at most, on two or three articles; the conflict-prone articles can thus be very easily identified. Once they've been identified, a page with a list of them should be set up so that everyone can access the complete list if he/she wants to. Then a warning notice should be posted on each article (something like 'This article has given rise to editing conflict in the past, and may therefore be subject to temporary page blocks at the discretion of a Wikipedia administrator'). That's it. The basic proposal can likely be tweaked a bit, but I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work, and why it wouldn't provide a fast, simple and effective alternative to DS. NinaGreen ( talk) 20:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't agree with your suspicion that most arbitrations which result in DS arise from a small number of articles, and therefore don't follow to the next logical step. Indeed, if it's only one article, the community is generally pretty good at locking the page and handling the dispute - arbitration comes when an editor (or a few editors) become disruptive and dispute resolution isn't working. Worm^TT( talk) 10:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• I have already explained to you, on this very page, why I think your proposal is never going to work; various others have done the same, but you seem not to listen to opinions you disagree with. There comes a point when constantly repeating oneself becomes obstinateness – for fans of acronyms, see WP:IDHT – and leads to the posts of the editor in question being ignored. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Worm That Turned wrote: 'I don't agree with your suspicion that most arbitrations which result in DS arise from a small number of articles, and therefore don't follow to the next logical step'. Well, I know from personal experience of one arbitration which resulted from one article (at the utmost, two, but in reality only one), and which resulted in DS which now cover an untold number of Wikipedia articles, perhaps as many as several hundred. I'd appreciate (as I imagine others would), learning of arbitrations resulting in DS which arose from a large number of Wikipedia articles. If my premise is wrong, then obviously my solution needs to be tweaked, perhaps in a major way. But if my premise is right, as my personal experience seems to suggest it is, then my solution remains a fast, easy and effective one. And I should perhaps stress that my solution starts from a solid basic principle, which is that Wikipedia is ultimately about the users, and my solution would not be a detriment to Wikipedia users. In fact, it might be an outright benefit to Wikipedia users because articles which constantly change on a daily basis, even incrementally, because of edit wars, are downright confusing to Wikipedia users. It's therefore better to temporarily block editing on those pages, in terms of benefit to Wikipedia users, than to confuse them with constantly changing 'information'. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nina, I'm telling you that in my experience - i.e. cases I've taken part in and read as part of amendments - discretionary sanctions are invoked when there are a significant number of articles which have been affected. I'm not saying it's always the case, but generally. It's not up to me to prove that to you, I'd recommend you spend a little time reading the evidence pages of the affected areas and you'll see what I'm talking about. Feel free to put the effort in and make up a table, I'd happily review it. Finally, I don't agree that Wikipedia is ultimately about the users. It's about the readers (the content of the encyclopedia), it's about the re-users (free content) and it's about the users (the community) - we should balance all, but when we can't, we should treat them in that order. Worm^TT( talk) 08:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Salvio wrote: 'I have already explained to you, on this very page, why I think your proposal is never going to work'. Yes, you did, and another editor disagreed with your explanation, and your fellow arbitrator, AGK, stated immediately below your explanation that he'd be willing to give my proposal a trial. So it's not an open and shut case that your explanation has settled the matter, and I hope you'll keep an open mind. A key point is that your explanation puts Wikipedia editors first; you wrote above:'Furthermore, by shutting down a page you're adopting an indiscriminate approach, which is inherently unfair when there is only one (or a limited number of) disruptive editor(s)'. But Wikipedia is ultimately about users, not editors, and my proposal puts the interests of Wikipedia users first. Discretionary sanctions (DS) put the interests of Wikipedia editors first. That's putting the cart before the horse. Clearly the interests of both can't come first, and when a choice has to be made, the interests of Wikipedia users have to take precedence. Not only that, but there are all the other significant benefits from my proposal, such as the huge amount of arbitrator and administrator time it will free up because there will be no arbitration enforcement, appeals, or applications for clarification if my proposal is implemented. The latter have given rise to confusion and injustice and the loss of at least some good editors, so implementation of my proposal would be a win-win situation. No solution is perfect, but mine would provide the greatest number of positive results while doing the least amount of harm. NinaGreen ( talk) 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

V3 queries Information

I've few fresh things I'd very much like input on for possible inclusion in V3. These arise out of comments made on this page. I'd appreciate comments on the specific proposals. Comments consisting of rehashes of material already posted on this page may be removed.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This will probably get deleted or archived but I wanted to post a note that it is a little dissapointing to see that all of the discussion that didn't agree or go along with this review were archived and all of the discussion that advocates it was kept. It doesn't seem like manipulating the discussion to achieve the outcome you desire would be against some policy. But as I have said before, the policy generally only applies to non admins so I guess it works out. It still sets a very bad precedent. 138.162.8.59 ( talk) 18:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did the discussion go? As I mentioned above, I logged in this morning, and the discussion in which the arbitrators were giving their views on my proposal for an alternative to discretionary sanctions (DS) has simply disappeared, and the review has been summarily shut down. This is not the first time I've seen a Wikipedia process summarily shut down right in the middle of things by one arbitrator without warning. One gets the impression that a Wikipedia procedure and/or review is a game with no set rules, in which one or two people suddenly decide that the game has ended, and that they've won. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody arbitrator was really giving their views on your proposal. They were, with increasing weariness, explaining why your proposals could not work. (The discussion went to an archive.) AGK [•] 00:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What precedent has been set, IP, other than that out-of-scope proposals and comments shall not be given unlimited time and attention from the initiators of this consultation? Do you spare no thought for the fact that we volunteers are not willing to wrestle in debate with ideas that we won't ever vote to adopt as arbitration procedures? I'm sure you would admit we've listened long enough to the proposals which dominated the end of the Draft v2 consultation. I just wish you'd understand that while we ought to listen to you, we aren't obliged to agree with you—two different acts that, unforgivably, you insist on conflating. AGK [•] 00:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry same person as IP above. The precedent that comments opposed to the topic or that don't conform to the desires of the topic owners will be removed. I agree it was getting long and some could have been removed or closed but to move everything that was in opposition to the topic on the grounds that it was nothing but sanctionees is a little disheartening. I'm not sanctioned and all I asked for was some evidence that the Arbom cared about admins abusing the sanctions and using them as an excuse to ban editors they don't like or jump to the extreme end of the spectrum...which is all too often what happens. One of the main commentors in this review has a long history of going straight to a one year block or doling out draconian punishments for editing articles that are far removed from the sanctions. People don't even want to edit articles under sanction anymore because their afraid of getting blocked. Some of the blocks have been so tangential to the sanction that it defied logic how they were even justified. But the decision was above reproach and the admin in question, being of the attitude they are never wrong, almost never reverts their blocks or reduces them. So in many instances under when you Arbcom folks apply a sanction to a topic you are telling the community to edit this topic at your own peril. So most just ignore that topic. 108.45.104.158 ( talk) 13:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

AGK wrote: 'Nobody arbitrator was really giving their views on your proposal. They were, with increasing weariness, explaining why your proposals could not work'. Since more than half of the arbitrators had still not been heard from, and since most of the arbitrators who replied had never voiced an opinion on my proposal before, it can hardly be true that they were 'with increasing weariness, explaining why my proposals could not work', could it? In fact, my proposals could work, and if the discussion had not been abruptly archived, and we had heard from all the arbitrators, and had discussed the pros and cons of my proposal, perhaps the majority of the arbitrators would have agreed that it could and would work. You yourself at one point said you would be willing to give my proposal a trial, and your statement has now been archived. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This topic (discussed above) requires a separate section because of the issues it raises about the powers of administrators and arbitrators. Currently the draft reads: Any uninvolved administrator may impose warnings, admonishments, editing restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, blocks of up to one year in duration, and/or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. There is nothing in the draft which specifies which of these powers are powers only granted to administrators under DS, and which administrators are not permitted to exercise elsewhere on Wikipedia. Obviously a clear distinction between the two in the draft is badly needed so that any Wikipedia editor will know what powers an administrator has in a DS and a non-DS situation. More importantly, though, there also needs to be a statement in the draft along the lines of :'The powers granted to administrators under DS differ from the powers granted to arbitrators: arbitrators have the power to do A, B and C, which administrators under DS do not have the power to do'. Such a statement is obviously needed because as the draft currently reads, it is so broad as to imply that the 15 arbitrators have delegated to the 1400 administrators under DS all the powers which they (the arbitrators) were specifically elected to exercise, and moreover have granted to administrators the authority to exercise the same powers as arbitrators exercise, but without an arbitration taking place. This seems incongruous: the 15 arbitrators are bound to have an arbitration take place before exercising these powers, yet the draft implies that the 1400 administrators can exercise all the same powers, but without an arbitration having to take place, not to mention that when the 1400 administrators were elected, no-one elected them to exercise the same sweeping powers against editors as arbitrators have, yet now the arbitrators have empowered them to do so, and 'without trial' (i.e. arbitration), so to speak. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Well no. ArbCom is elected to resolve disputes; the special power it has is to issue binding decisions. This special power is built into both the Arbitration policy and the WMF's Terms of Use. However, this is not extended to enforcing administrators; their decisions are open to several layers of appeal. The notion that DS is some sort of guilty little secret is just silly. Admins have been handling arbitration enforcement since March 2006 in plain sight of the community and this is supported by policy. What's more, the community itself sometimes issues its own DS.  Roger Davies talk 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Roger Davies, this reply doesn't address the issue I raised, which is that there is no statement in the draft which clarifies the differences in the powers of (1)arbitrators (2) administrators in DS situations and (3) administrators in non-DS situations. The draft as it stands appears to give administrators in DS situations the same powers as arbitrators, thus effectively creating by fiat 1415 arbitrators. It should be a simple matter to modify the draft to state that arbitrators can do A, B, and C, which administrators can never do; that administrators in DS situations can do X, Y and Z, which administrators in non-DS situations can never do. Why not simply amend the draft, so that all Wikipedia editors can apprise themselves of the differences in powers? NinaGreen ( talk) 17:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC) The analogy's not perfect, but it's close enough to make the point. What's happened with the assignment of powers by arbitrators to administrators under DS is as though a group of judges, elected and/or appointed after careful scrutiny, having tried and sentenced a number of robbers and murderers, decided that robbery and murder were troublesome crimes, and since those crimes were likely to be repeated in the future by someone or other, anyone employed in the court system (clerks, sheriffs, court reporters, interpreters etc.) should now have the power to sentence robbers and murderers without trial, handing out any sentence they chose. I'm sure the arbitrators would recoil in horror from that scenario, yet what's the difference between that and the delegation of the arbitrators' powers to administrators under DS? NinaGreen ( talk) 00:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Oh please, this is a website. Analogies with murderers (and the death penalty) are just ridiculous. If a real-life analogy exists (and I'm not conceding that), it is with parking enforcement. Administrators have long had wide discretion to block and will long continue to do so. As for your insistence that a "trial" is always needed, this is gross instruction creep. We are here to write an encyclopedia not run a Justice Role-playing game. Most administrative blocks - and this figure runs into tens of thousands - are issued without any kind of hearing at all. Where scrutiny does take place, it is usually with a minimum of fuss via the {{unblock}} template.   Roger Davies talk 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC) The analogy is not perfect, but it makes the point, which is that arbitrators can no more hand off by fiat to administrators the powers they (the arbitrators) were elected to exercise than a group of judges can hand off by fiat the powers they were elected or appointed to exercise to employees of the court system. The problem with DS is that that is exactly what is happening. If you would take the time to define in the draft the powers which (1) arbitrators (2) administrators in DS situations and (3) administrators in non-DS situations are permitted to exercise, you would immediately see that the draft as it currently stands grants the powers of arbitrators to administrators, thus effectively creating 1415 arbitrators. If I'm wrong about that (and I'm pretty sure I'm not), then clarification of the powers in the draft will demonstrate that I'm wrong, so why not simply amend the draft to define the respective powers? The result will be of benefit to every Wikipedia editor since that crucial information is not currently available anywhere on Wikipedia, and in the current draft the respective powers are blurred to the point that no Wikipedia editor can determine which powers are reserved to arbitrators, which to administrators in DS situations, and which to administrators in non-DS situations. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC) For once I agree with something substantive Nina said. In this section I suggest tweaking the text as follows Role of administrators Only uninvolved administrators may impose discretionary sanctions. Any duly notified editor may be sanctioned for any repeated or serious failure to meet Wikipedia's behavioural expectations. REASON: stricken text is off topic in this section, though if the subject were changed it might be written as "Any uninvolved administrator may sanction any editor who had previously received the alert that DS applies for.... etc etc etc Individual sanctions AnyWhere DS applies, any uninvolved administrator may impose warnings, admonishments, editing restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, blocks of up to one year in duration, and/or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Sanctions must be logged. Page restrictions AnyWhere DS applies, any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, protection, move protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except where a firm consensus for the edit has been obtained); or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to prevent disruption. Such restrictions are enforceable by uninvolved administrators through the use of individual sanctions. Administrators are expected to log page restrictions though failure to do so does not invalidate it. It is best practice to add edit notices to restricted pages where appropriate. Keep the remaining 2 paragraphs in this section I chose "where DS applies" on purpose, so it will be controlled by the "broadly construed" bit, and we can discussanyone who wants to complain about that some more can do it on the section dedicated to that language. We shouldn't try to define where DS applies under this section heading in the draft. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestions above, which help clarify the text. However the two basic issues are unresolved, i.e. (1) the text still delegates all arbitrators' powers to administrators in a DS situation, thus creating by fiat 1415 arbitrators (there is no statement that administrators in a DS situation cannot do A, B and C because those powers are strictly reserved to arbitrators), and (2) there is nothing in the text identifying which of the named powers are unique to administrators in a DS situation. Obviously most of the powers named in the text (as well as the broad undefined power mentioned in the text) can be exercised by administrators in a non-DS situation, so which are the powers which can only be exercised by administrators in a DS situation? The problem arises from the fact that nowhere on Wikipedia are the powers of administrators in a non-DS situation clearly defined. If there were such a statement elsewhere on Wikipedia, then the text under consideration would merely have to state that 'In addition to the powers granted to administrators in non-DS situations at [link to wherever that statement is], in DS situations administrators are granted these additional powers [list each of the additional powers], but are not permitted to do A, B and C [list the powers strictly reserved to arbitrators alone]. I think anyone can see that it's very important that all Wikipedia editors have this information so that editors can inform themselves of the powers which can legitimately be exercised at all three levels, arbitrator, administrator DS, and administrator non DS. Otherwise, how can Wikipedia editors possibly know whether an administrator is exceeding his/her power in any situation? The powers have to be defined for the benefit of Wikipedia editors. NinaGreen ( talk) You need to stop talking and give other community members an opportunity to weigh in on this consultation. If you do not do so, you will not be allowed to keep participating. You are monopolising the conversation in order to push a fringe agenda, as any uninvolved administrator observing this situation will easily see, and it must stop. AGK [•] 22:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC) strong support NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I've been putting forward proposals which would benefit Wikipedia, and far from wanting to 'monopolize the conversation', I've been hoping every day that other editors would discuss the proposals, and offer suggestions concerning them, but no-one has. Having the powers of arbitrators, administrators in DS situations, and administrators in non-DS situations clearly defined and differentiated is not a 'fringe agenda' (whatever that is!); it would be a tremendous benefit to all Wikipedia editors to have the respective powers of arbitrators, administrators in DS situations, and administrators in non-DS situations clearly defined and differentiated. However the proposal that powers be clearly defined and differentiated seems to have struck a nerve, and I've been told to shut up about it, which I'll do. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC) I agree with Nina on one point, and that is that I don't think that she is trying to monopolize the conversation, but that doesn't change the fact that she is monopoolizing the conversation. She apparently feels that discretionary sanctions are deeply flawed and should either be discarded or fundamentally reformed. However, I will try to answer one question that she says hasn't been answered, and that is how the powers of admins under DS differ from the normal powers of admins. Nina is essentially right that DS gives uninvolved administrators arbitrator-like powers, subject to appeal, such as the power to impose a 1RR rule (in place of 3RR) on edit warriors, or to topic-ban POV-pushers, or to interaction-ban editors who cannot get along. (The will-o-the-wisp of "the community" also has those powers at the noticeboards.) In non-DS cases, administrators have basically one power, the power to block, which is subject to review. That is the basic difference. [[WP:Discretionary sanctions{Discretionary sanctions]] are recognized as a draconian remedy for disputes that would otherwise have to be re-arbitrated over and over again. Maybe that answers Nina's question, or maybe Nina has some other question that hasn't been formulated clearly. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Robert McClenon. That's no longer really true and hasn't been for some time. Admins, especially the creative ones, can and do issue all sorts of "voluntary" restrictions of their own volition, usually as an alternative to further blocking or as a condition of unblocking. Because of the way that policy works (ie new policy is created by successful groundbreaking actions, rather than following what is written), these restrictions are now de facto part of the admin's arsenal. Conversely, there are no limits whatsoever on the ability of the community to issue whatever sanctions it pleases or to authorise administrators to do so. (Though most kinds of longterm restriction are theoretically appealable to ArbCom, ArbCom traditionally doesn't interfere in the reasonable exercise of administrative discretion or attempt to restrict the community's discretion.) So, in practical terms, I doubt that that there is very much difference at all and it is certainly not worth the effort of attempting to codify elusory differences, especially when such a codification will, in and of itself, be hugely controversial.   Roger Davies talk 11:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks, Robert McClenon. Your reply appears to end with a question to me, so I hope I won't be penalized for responding to it. I think I formulated my question clearly. It was: Why isn't the information you've provided here formalized in the text (see my suggestions for wording above) so that it will be freely available to all Wikipedia editors, and no Wikipedia editor will ever have to ask about it, or be uncertain about it, again? The reluctance to make this essential information freely available in written form to all Wikipedia editors on the DS page seems incomprehensible. NinaGreen ( talk) 04:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC) This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.   Roger Davies talk 12:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

General comments from Harry Mitchell

I've been involved at AE, on and off, for several years. I seem to be a little late to this party, but I wanted to make some comments and suggestions (on arbitration enforcement/discretionary sanctions in general, rather than the draft text), both for the consideration of the committee, and for members of the wider community who do not closely follow AE.

Comments/observations on AE and discretionary sanctins as they are currently:

• The first thing I feel I should state, in the light of some of the comments I've read here and elsewhere, is that the vast majority of actions taken under the provisions of discretionary sanctions are entirely uncontroversial and usually irrefutable. The sanctions are usually for conduct that any reasonable person would think fell well below the level of decorum expected of encyclopaedia editors, much less editors working in toxic and controversial topic areas. In >90% of cases, no objective person could look at the facts and conclude that the admin acted unreasonably.
• Although any single admin has the power to enforce arbitration remedies (including imposing discretionary sanctions in the areas where they're authorised) unilaterally, my experience is that most violations are reported to WP:AE, because it's the best place to find admins familiar with the procedures. Thus, most enforcement requests get the attention of at least two or three admins, even if the result is uncontroversial, and several more will likely see it but not comment. AE is of course a public noticeboard. While it's not a venue for threaded discussion, any editor can comment on requests. I for one would welcome concise, clueful comments from uninvolved editors, especially those with no strong feelings about the topic area in question.
• Contrary to comments about admins having sweeping powers, we only enforce arbitration remedies. Although in the case of discretionary sanctions, we have close to carte blanche to decide on the exact method of enforcement (if enforcement action is necessary—"discretionary" also means that we have the option of taking no action or of a warning or something else intangible), we don't just make up the rules as we go along, and we can't sanction people willy nilly. In fact, our hands are tied by ArbCom much more tightly than is commonly believed. If you're unlucky enough to be sanctioned at AE, you would have to have done something that falls well below the standard of conduct expected of editors in controversial topic areas, after being advised of the expected level of conduct (or, if this draft becomes policy, clearly demonstrating that you are aware of it), and most likely after seeing edit-notices and talk page banners advising you of the discretionary sanctions, and probably after being advised that your conduct did not meet that standard. I'm an empathetic person, but I'd struggle to believe that that was just bad luck.
• Others have (correctly) observed that AE is dominated by a small number of admins. This is probably a result of a combination factors, including the toxicity that surrounds arbitration, the perniciousness of the topic areas subject to the sanctions, and the bureaucratic procedures involved with taking arbitration enforcement actions. This is not ideal, but it's not a crisis—some admins are more active than others, some comment on issues to do with particular topic areas, much like any other areas; of course, more objective opinions (from admins and non-admins alike) would be very welcome.
• There is a lack of critical thinking at AE. Many of the editors we deal with at AE are not bad people; they're not trolls or vandals. For the most part, although their actions are disruptive, it is not their intention to damage the encyclopaedia, and AE admins should, wherever possible, seek ways of limiting their disruption while allowing them to continue making constructive edits. AE admins too often (in my opinion) fall back on blunt instruments which either kick the can down the road (such as short-term blocks) or give the editor no chance to redeem themselves or make constructive edits in less controversial areas (such as broad topic bans or lengthy blocks).

Suggestions/proposals for improvements of AE/discretionary sanctions:

• Scrutiny of AE should be welcomed. It tends to be a mostly forgotten corner of the project space, but we (the admins who work there) should welcome comments from a broader range of editors, including non-admins. Extra objective opinions might not change anything, but people can have more confidence in the system if they feel they have a stake in it, and we may get some useful suggestions or outside observations which make the process work better.
• Add a clause to the standard motions/remedies authorising discretionary sanctions and to the log to encourage admins to use the AE noticeboard (and encourage parties to use it rather than approaching an admin directly) rather than acting unilaterally, especially when considering long-term sanctions or actions that might be controversial.
• Simplify the appeals process, and require admins invoking discretionary sanctions to inform the sanctioned editor of their right to appeal (to AE and/or ArbCom). Perhaps appeals of blocks could be conducted on the blocked user's talk page and transcluded to WP:AE? Regardless, it should be quick and simple to appeal arbitration enforcement actions, even for relatively inexperienced editors, and even while blocked.
• Arbitrators, especially the longer-serving arbs (and possibly some of the longer-serving AE admins), should approach experienced admins with a good track record of level-headedness and ask them to consider weighing in at AE from time to time. Hopefully this would deepen the pool of admins who handle AE requests and possibly bring in some fresh thinking and different perspectives.
• Arbitrator participation a AE in an advisory role. Where something contentious or novel is being proposed, especially when the editor in question or their supporters are claiming that the scenario was no one foreseen by ArbCom during the relevant case, it may be useful to hear from an arbitrator. This could be either an individual arb's perception of the case or one arb speaking for the committee.
• Periodical review of discretionary sanctions. Every few years, ArbCom (or perhaps an ad hoc body appointed by them) should review discretionary sanctions in a given topic area to evaluate whether i) they are having the intended effect, ii) they are still necessary in that topic area, and iii) whether admins' enforcement of them is in line with achieving the aim the committee had in mind when authorising them.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Amended. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

HJ: Thank you very much for your submission. This will usefully inform the decisions we need to make at the end of this review. AGK [•] 12:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Harry Mitchell, you seem like a great guy, and I concur with a number of your well-thought out observations above. However there's one point in particular where I think your analysis misses the mark. You wrote: 'The first thing I feel I should state, in the light of some of the comments I've read here and elsewhere, is that the vast majority of actions taken under the provisions of discretionary sanctions are entirely uncontroversial and usually irrefutable. The sanctions are usually for conduct that any reasonable person would think fell well below the level of decorum expected of encyclopaedia editors, much less editors working in toxic and controversial topic areas'. This begs the question of why these editors could not be dealt with under Wikipedia's ordinary (i.e. non DS) system. I raised this very point early in this discussion. Why does there need to be a difference between what administrators can do to an editor with respect to his/her editing of an article on which DS have been imposed and his/her editing of an article on which DS have not been imposed? The editor's conduct in both instances is exactly the same conduct, and if it's unacceptable, it's unacceptable per se, and it shouldn't matter a whit whether there are DS in place on that article or not in terms of how that editor's conduct is 'punished'. That's why I cannot, for the life of me, understand why DS exist when it comes to the 'punishment' of editors. At the end of an arbitration, certain editors are punished with sanctions for their conduct which brought about the arbitration, and then DS are imposed with respect to the articles those editors edited on! Where is the sense in that? I simply can't see it. Why set up a separate system of 'punishment' for editorial conduct which has not yet occurred in an article? That's all discretionary sanctions are -- a system for punishment for editorial misconduct which hasn't even occurred when the DS are put in place. Why not, instead, simply identify contentious articles, and put editing blocks in place whenever the editorial heat on those articles gets too high? And if not that, why not just deal with this future misconduct, when and if it occurs, just as it would be dealt with in any other Wikipedia article? Editing is editing; if it falls below a certain standard of conduct, it should be dealt with and 'punished' in exactly the same way, not dealt with differently according to whether DS have been imposed on an article. NinaGreen ( talk) 21:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

NinaGreen, I respectfully submit that you are flogging a dead horse. Please stop. AGK [•] 23:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

V3 queries Information

I've few fresh things I'd very much like input on for possible inclusion in V3. These arise out of comments made on this page. I'd appreciate comments on the specific proposals. Comments consisting of rehashes of material already posted on this page may be removed.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ending discretionary sanctions for a topic

I can't decide between ending or rescinding. Have I missed anything in this? Comments please,   Roger Davies ^talk 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, it does not seem necessary to mention this possibility, because the Committee may at any time decide to lift (there's a third alternative...) sanctions without first having to spell out the possibility here in the abstract. And I don't know whether anything on Wikipedia is ever completely "problem-free" ...  Sandstein  16:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• The problem here is that as far as I know Arbcom doesn't do it or if they do its exceedingly rare. Some of the sanctions we have in place have been here for years without being changed and that has caused some subjects to not be edited at all for fear of being blocked or punished for violating a sanction. 138.162.8.59 ( talk) 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I logged in this morning, and in the midst of a discussion in which arbitrators had been asked to, and were in the process of giving, their views as to my proposal for an alternative to discretionary sanctions (DS), I find that the review of DS has now been summarily ended. And I note that it was shut down just after I had reminded Salvio, an arbitrator, that his fellow arbitrator, AGK, had stated that he was willing to give my proposal a trial. Perhaps this is the way Wikipedia works; perhaps it's a place where the status quo reigns, and discussion of new and better alternatives to existing procedures is summarily shut down just when the arbitrators have become engaged in the discussion. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The proposal above is one which sets the system up for failure. There should be an automatic review by the arbitrators of all discretionary sanctions (DS) every year, and the arbitrators should themselves remove them from situations in which they are no longer deemed necessary. The arbitrators put DS in place without any input from editors; the arbitrators alone should have the responsibility of reviewing them and removing them when they are no longer deemed necessary. Requiring an individual editor to file a 'proposal to remove authorisation for discretionary sanctions' makes no sense; any editor suggesting any such thing would be immediately suspected of wanting the sanctions removed because he/she had a POV to push. Any sanction which the arbitrators impose should have an accompanying procedure in place for review by the arbitrators on a regular basis, whether it be DS, indefinite topic bans of editors, or any other sanction whatsoever. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

NinaGreen, I fear you have misunderstood several issues. I hope you'll forgive my correcting you. The discussion was "summarily ended" because the next draft has been published. Suggestions that made a lot of sense or were supported by a large number of editors made it into the new draft; anything left behind is resolved business. Be careful not to conflate our being willing to listen to your suggestions with our having to accept them (or having to listen to you make them over and over).

I didn't say I would give your proposal a trial. I said I would welcome you going away and trialling it elsewhere. AGK [•] 23:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

AGK, I would suggest that it was a strange time to 'summarily end' the discussion right in the middle of input from the entire group of 13 arbitrators who had been largely (in most cases totally) unheard from during this review, some of whom admitted they were not even up to speed on such an important part of an arbitrator's job as discretionary sanctions (DS), or that they were deferring to other arbitrators (surely arbitrators are not elected to defer to other arbitrators!). Why summarily end the discussion at such a crucial point? As for your comment that your earlier statement was that you would 'welcome my going away and trialling my proposal elsewhere', that certainly isn't evident from the wording of your earlier statement, but in any event, since nothing which remotely parallels the Wikipedia arbitration procedure exists anywhere else in the world, where were you suggesting I should 'trial' it? Just curious. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think restricting the Committee to two years is a positive or helpful change. For example, if discretionary sanctions are authorised for a topic but not used at all for a year and a half then the Committee shouldn't be restricted to waiting an extra 6 months. I don't agree with Nina that all topic areas should be reviewed every year, there are some (pseudoscience, Arab-Israeli to name a couple) which are always going to be an issue. However there are some topic areas where they havem't been used at all or for a long period of time ( Muhammad two years ago and Tree shaping which haven't been used for more then two years). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Callanecc. You wrote: For example, if discretionary sanctions are authorised for a topic but not used at all for a year and a half then the Committee shouldn't be restricted to waiting an extra 6 months'. I agree. Perhaps this alternative could also be considered: Why not limit the imposition of DS to one year, after which time they would expire, unless extended by ArbCom for a further period of time? The simpler we make things, the better, and putting time limits on all sanctions, after which they would automatically expire unless extended at the discretion of ArbCom, would drastically reduce the amount of time spent on AE, appeals, reviews, etc. NinaGreen ( talk) 03:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, Nina; it would increase the burden on arbs, who would have to remember each year to renew the authorisation. They might forget, they might do it a tad late and so people would say "I misbehaved before DS were re-authorised, so you can't restrict me" and other lovely things. Probably, in the end we'd end up passing omnibus motions extending all discretionary sanctions currently in place which would be an exercise in pointless bureaucracy. The best solution, in my opinion, is the addition of something along the lines "when it has become apparent that discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary, the arbitration committee may be asked to amend the original case revoking the authorisation to impose them; the sanctions and restrictions already in place remain in force." Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Much better,   Roger Davies ^talk 10:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Salvio wrote: 'On the contrary, Nina; it would increase the burden on arbs, who would have to remember each year to renew the authorisation.'. No, it would do the opposite; it would decrease the burden on ArbCom. Justice and fairness require that every indefinite sanction imposed by ArbCom be subject to a scheduled review, whether the sanction is an indefinite imposition of discretionary sanctions (DS) on articles (defined by ArbCom as 'topics' broadly construed) or whether the sanction is an indefinite topic ban on individual editors. This has never yet been done by ArbCom, but that doesn't obviate the fact that justice and fairness require that ArbCom do it. Thus, if both indefinite imposition of DS on articles and indefinite imposition of topic bans on editors were subject to scheduled review, as justice and fairness require, it would obviously be in ArbCom's interest, and would lessen ArbCom's workload, if most, if not all, sanctions were imposed for limited terms, which would automatically expire. That's the simple solution to ArbCom's complaints about its ever-increasing workload. ArbCom is steadily increasing its own workload by imposing indefinite sanctions of both types, which never go away, and which give rise to more and more enforcement cases, appeals, applications for clarification, etc. A huge 'punishment' subculture is thus being built up, which requires more and more expenditure of time by ArbCom and by administrators. At the same time, these indefinite sanctions contribute to a steady loss of editors from Wikipedia, and to a distinctly uncomfortable editing atmosphere, as well as other counter-productive results. The problems are of ArbCom's own creation because of the decision taken by some arbitrator or arbitrators in the past that indefinite sanctions were the way to go. If every sanction imposed by ArbCom had a definite time limit, after which it would automatically expire, there would only be a very few sanctions which ArbCom would need to review on a scheduled basis in order to decide whether they should be renewed. Keeping track of them, given the amazing technical expertise on Wikipedia, would be a very simple matter; there is simply no way, given that technical expertise, that ArbComs 'might forget, or they might do it a tad late', particularly since they would have so little else to do as a result of imposing only sanctions with defined time limits. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Another point is that because human nature is human nature, no-one realistically expects that people can be objective about their own decisions, particularly decisions involving punishment, and thus nowhere in the world, other than Wikipedia, do appeals go to the tribunal (in this case ArbCom) which handed down the original decision and/or the 'punishment'. Appeals always go to a tribunal superior in jurisdiction to the tribunal which handed down the original decision and/or punishment. Wikipedia thus needs a body superior to ArbCom to which all appeals of ArbCom decisions and punishments (sanctions) can be directed. The policy set out above ('Proposals to remove authorisation for discretionary sanctions may be made on a topic-by-topic basis as a request for amendment of the original case') is thus set up for failure on two levels, firstly because it is directed to ArbCom, whereas it should, as everywhere else in the world, be directed to a body superior in jurisdiction to ArbCom, and secondly because, as I mentioned above, any editor filing such a proposal is going to be immediately suspected by ArbCom of ulterior motives, i.e. of wanting the discretionary sanctions lifted so he/she can push a POV in the article in question without fear of DS. Thus ArbCom can never realistically be expected to lift DS when an individual editor files a proposal, and so at present the only realistic solution is either (1) for ArbCom to set up a schedule by which ArbCom itself regularly reviews the DS it has imposed, or (2) for ArbCom to set time limits on all DS so that they automatically expire at the end of a fixed period of time unless extended by ArbCom for an additional fixed period of time because the article/topic is still the focus of extraordinary editor conflict. The same is true of appeals to ArbCom by editors under indefinite topic bans. It's unrealistic to expect that ArbCom will ever trust an editor on whom it has imposed an indefinite topic ban. Such appeals should be directed to a body superior in jurisdiction to ArbCom, which can be objective about the editor. NinaGreen ( talk) 00:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ending discretionary sanctions for a topic (alternative)

This comes from Salvio's proposal, above.   Roger Davies ^talk 11:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I won't repeat my comments here with respect to this proposal other than to note that my comments apply equally to both proposals. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good alternative, thanks Salvio and Roger. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Salvio's excellent suggestion could be improved by instead just suspending the DS-authorization under cases, but keeping the rulings themselves alive. If unused rulings are vaporized entirely, troublemakers might come out of hibernation to game the system and get feisty all over again. In the interest of prevention it should be super simple to turn DS authorization back on. So I would modify Salvio's otherwise excellent idea to read "when it has become apparent that discretionary sanctions under a particular ruling are no longer necessary, the arbitration committee may be asked to amend the original case revoking suspend the authorization to impose them; at its discretion the committee may reinstate the authorization at any time and during any period the authorization is suspendedthe sanctions and restrictions already in place remain in force." NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Proportionality

This is intended to apply equally to over-leniency and over-harshness. Comments please,   Roger Davies ^talk 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• In principle, this is entirely correct, but I'm a bit worried about possible wikilawyering about this provision, and appeals in the vein of "but policy says he MUST first give me friendly advice about my mass change of "Republic of Borduria" to "Poopland"!"  Sandstein  16:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Its a good reminder and the thought is appreciated but I hope the committee has the desire and the will to follow through on this. Unless the Arbcom is actually going to do something about the admin's who are breakig the rules, which I doubt they will, its just words on a page. 138.162.8.59 ( talk) 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Sandstein on this one. Maybe if the wording included something at the end like (and this isn't very good) "...but this is not required for a sanction to be issued". I don't think there should be a comma between "unimportant" and "instances". Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• This is a very good addition; concerning the possibility of wikilawyering, I'm not particularly worried: from my experience, both AE admins and arbcom usually dismiss such appeals rather quickly, without wasting much time. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The entire proposal above, with the substitution of 'Wikipedia' for 'the discretionary sanctions process' should be on a page which sets out the functions of administrators per se, because what it describes is the manner in which administrators should always govern themselves. Once again we are confronted with a conundrum which I brought up early in this discussion: what is the difference between the powers given to administrators with respect to articles covered by discretionary sanctions (DS) and those given to them with respect to articles not covered by DS? There appears to be absolutely no difference which can be identified by anyone. This brings up again the fact that ArbCom imposes DS, not on editor conduct which has already occurred (the editors who have been involved in an arbitration are punished separately from DS), but on editor conduct which has not yet occurred. This is why discretionary sanctions are a flawed concept; they deal with editor conduct which has not yet occurred, and which may never occur, and they purport to set up administrator powers which are different from administrator powers elsewhere on Wikipedia but which in actuality are exactly the same as administrator powers elsewhere on Wikipedia, thus breeding confusion on the part of editors and administrators. NinaGreen ( talk) 18:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Before offering an opinion, an editor should at least try to make an effort to familiarise himself with the topic at hand.

In your case, on top of that, it's also true that you've already been informed of the differences between standard admin actions and discretionary sanctions. That you are still confused is probably consequence of what the codex juris canonici would call supine ignorance on your part. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Salvio, rudeness is not the answer ('supine ignorance'). Rather than rudeness, simply explain the difference to all of us. It's not clear to anyone. You wrote: 'it's also true that you've already been informed of the differences between standard admin actions and discretionary sanctions'. What exactly is the difference, and where is it clearly spelled out in the draft? Where in the draft does it say 'Under discretionary sanctions, administrators are granted additional powers consisting of X, Y and Z, powers which administrators are not authorized to exercise except under DS'? NinaGreen ( talk) 18:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

With one notable exception, the difference is clear to everyone here.   Roger Davies ^talk 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger Davies, it is not at all clear to everyone. Most Wikipedia editors are not at all familiar with administrator powers, much less the difference between administrator powers under DS and administrators powers not under DS. Where in the draft is a statement which makes the difference clear? Where in the draft is a statement along the lines of 'Under discretionary sanctions, administrators are granted additional powers consisting of X, Y and Z, powers which administrators are not authorized to exercise except under DS'? Such a statement is obviously badly needed in the draft so that all Wikipedia editors can immediately be apprised of the difference. NinaGreen ( talk) 19:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What admins can do with DS is spelled out here, here and here.   Roger Davies ^talk 19:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. I was aware of that, but as I've explained above, and in the new section below, the statement in the draft is not specific concerning the difference in powers because it doesn't specifically state (1) the difference in the powers which can be exercised by administrators in a DS situation as apposed to a non-DS situation, and it doesn't state (2) the difference between the powers which can be exercised by administrators in a DS situation and the powers of arbitrators. If there are specific differences, it should be a simple matter to spell them out so that every Wikipedia editor can be easily and fully apprised of the differences. NinaGreen ( talk) 20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I wonder how you can object so adamantly to discretionary sanctions if, in your view, they confer no additional powers on administrators anyway. AGK [•] 19:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

AGK, I've provided countless reasons in the course of this discussion as to why I object to DS and why I think DS are a terrible idea. And if I've given the impression that I think DS don't confer additional powers on administrators (powers they were not elected to exercise), I should correct that impression right here. My central point is that I don't think the draft clarifies which specific additional powers administrators have been given under DS, as I explained above and in the new section I started below, and that clarification is obviously needed so that any Wikipedia editor can apprise him/herself of the difference, if it exists. NinaGreen ( talk) 20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would welcome the addition of this section, but I agree with my colleagues above that that some misconduct is so egregious that admins shouldn't second guess whether sanctions are necessary, and the wording should explicitly allow for that. To put it another way, "friendly advice" is not (or not always) a prerequisite, but should be considered where an admin thinks it might nip a problem in the bud. Also, the "friendly advice", at least when I give it, sometimes (but not always) comes in the form of a bollocking or a dressing-down rather than the sort of conversation you'd have over a cup of tea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I've pulled this about and added language about egregious misconduct.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    • On reflection removed "friendly" from "informal friendly advice". We don't need appeals arguing that a bollocking is per se not friendly.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable but I some questions; Hypothetically, suppose on a bad day I suddenly incur a six month topic ban; Suppose I admit I was having a bad day but think the sanction was out of proportion. I gather there is an appeal process (which I have never read and know nothing about). Others have said that appeals are hardly ever (if ever) successful. Is that true? Are there other ways an ed can ask the community for an expression of trust to support a request to reduce a sanction? I'm familiar with real courts, where appellate courts regularly brush aside appeals saying the trial judge saw everyone in person and so the appellate court wasn't going to "substitute its opinion". But we don't have the benefit of admins getting to directly observe litigants over a trial's multiple days. So I was wondering whether requests to reduce sanctions might make up for that lack with the collective experience of regulars in the same subject area? That brings up all sorts of cabal questions, of course. Thoughts, anyone? Feel free to reply at my talk page if this is too far afield on this page. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Contentious administrative actions

Comments please,   Roger Davies ^talk 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Again, this is correct, but perhaps not strictly necessary, as the Committee retains disciplinary authority over the process whether or not it is spelled out here.

  I also wonder if it is also meant to apply to administrators who act disproportionately by observing misconduct and not acting on it at all with discretionary sanctions? Logically, that would seem to be as substantial an error in judgment as imposing inappropriately harsh sanctions. If not, then perhaps consideration should be given to the possibility that every mention of possible desysoppings etc. may reduce the willingness of administrators to help with the implementation of discretionary sanctions, giving that doing nothing at all is always the safe option, whereas if an administrator takes action they are exposed to an ever-growing panoply of possibilities for backlash, stress, controversy and trouble. (I am however aware that a very similar argument can be made against the principle of discretionary sanctions themselves as a possible deterrent for editors to engage in difficult topics, so.... I don't know whether this should be implemented or not.)  Sandstein  17:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is important because it (i) shows non-admin editors that a clear path exists for dealing with, say, heavy-handedness or over-rigidity and (ii) reminds adminstrators that they are expected to use their sweeping powers wisely.   Roger Davies ^talk 19:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Again this is good in principle if its followed through. Unfortunately, there are only a few admins dealing with these and their tendency is to ban forever at the slightest violation with no middle ground (because they argue they new it was sanctionable and what the outcome would be). 138.162.8.59 ( talk) 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• I prefer the new wording (from "Any administrator who...") to the one in the current draft however I would suggest that the first two sentences are redundant to the rest of the draft. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
• I think this conflates contentiousness (ie a dispute over whether sanctions were necessary at all) with proportionality (ie whether the sanction imposed was reasonable); the two should be separated in my opinion. And of course, in the spirit of proportionality, ArbCom should be willing to offer words of advise rather than sanctions for an admin who cocks up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with Sandstein. I would preface the last sentence with "The community is reminded that the committee has inherent powers (granted at link to authority) to (slap naughty admins around)." This makes it clear that the controlling text in any dispute will remain the link to authority, which is not being tweaked by whatever we say in this document. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion: Former administrators

Should a former administrator be able to overturn his or her earlier actions? Or give consent for their former actions to be overturned?   Roger Davies ^talk 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think that it would be easiest to treat such cases the same way as cases in which the sanctioning administrator is no longer active on Wikipedia. The sanction should, in such cases, be able to be modified or lifted by any administrator acting on their own authority, as if it were their own sanction. Or it should at least be able to be reviewed on appeal with a broader, de novo standard of review instead of exercising a degree of deference to the judgment of the sanctioning administrator.  Sandstein  17:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Again the problem here is that the current climate doesn't allow for an admin to overturn another admins actions. Sure they could, but they would catch hell for doing it. 138.162.8.59 ( talk) 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• As long as the former admin is able to get the tools back by requesting at WP:BN, then yes they should. For example Guerillero (just the first one I could think of) should be able change or overturn his AE actions without needing to get the tools back through a BN request (touching on NOTBURO) however an admin who has been desysopped by Committee request or inactive for 3+ years should not be able to overturn their own actions. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I assume this related to point 1 under appeals? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes,   Roger Davies ^talk 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• My preferred option is a simple bright-line rule. No bit, no admin powers. There's a terrible tendency for creep and highly nuanced rules, which is bad for the project. (Here's what Terence says: corruptisima re publica plurimae leges.) So we would end with editors on a tool-break issuing topic bans and so forth on the basis that they could have done it if they'd toggled the bit.   Roger Davies ^talk 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean (re WP:CREEP as well) but I think this is a place where it's worth making a distinction. What about if if they don't have the bit but can request it back they can give consent for another admin to change their action but can't perform any other action (ie sanctioning or overturning themselves) without their bit. Then again it's probably just as fair to leave it up to the admins handling the appeal, as an AE admin (albeit new) I would almost always ask the sanctioning admin (whether they were one at the time or not) what they thought of withdrawing their sanction given the appeal, it just makes it easier if they were to say yes and that meant something. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• It's good manners (per Callanecc) to ask the opinion of the person who imposed the sanction, and to give them a chance to vacate it if they've made a mistake or the sanctioned editor has been rehabilitated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's the one upside, but on balance I think it's better to use one rule to fit all cases concerning former sysops. AGK [•] 14:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I can certainly understand the arguments Roger's bright-line rule, so I wouldn't lose any sleep if that were all that made it into the final version, but I still think it's just good manners to ask the sanctioning admin's opinion, even if they don't get the final say. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

On the issue of "broadly construed"

While I don't think that the term "broadly construed" should necessarily be removed from the sanctions ArbCom imposes, because doing so would probably reward wikilawyering (and increase the burden on arbs, because there would be many more requests for amendment asking them to add – or rename, in the event of a rename – one article or another to the list of page under discretionary sanctions – a complete waste of time); however, it's also true that, occasionally, there are cases where an editor may, in good faith, believe that the article he's about to edit is not covered by discretionary sanctions (or a restriction he's under) and end up being reported to AE, where he discovers that admins disagree with this assessment. As a general rule, an editor should be able to know in advance whether his actions may expose him to sanctions, which isn't always possible when the expression "broadly construed" is used.

Now, one possible solution is already available, but to my knowledge it is not frequently used: any restricted editor may already ask ArbCom to clarify whether a given article is covered by his sanction. I propose to mention this possibility explicitly, extending it to all editors who are afraid the article they are about to edit is covered by discretionary sanctions (in this case, to avoid overwhelming arbcom with too many clarification requests we could also allow editors to start an AE thread asking admins to clarify whether an article is covered by discretionary sanctions).

There is, of course, the risk of frivolous requests, but, in my opinion, these could be handled with warnings and sanctions if necessary. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As with so many other suggestions in this discussion by arbitrators, this one merely adds to the arbitrators' workload, and burdens editors. Moreover the application for clarification to which I drew attention concerning Tea Party DS 'broadly construed' demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that arbitrators themselves consider the phrase 'broadly construed' to be 'tricky', and that the arbitrators in that application could not agree among themselves as to whether the editor could edit on that article or not. Moreover some arbitrators have admitted in this discussion that they are not up to speed on discretionary sanctions, and that they defer to other arbitrators, and the majority of arbitrators have not even been heard from in this discussion because the section in which the arbitrators were responding was abruptly archived before they had been heard from. Given all these facts (increase of administrator workload, the inability of the arbitrators themselves to decide on the meaning of 'broadly construed' in a particular case, and the fact that only a small minority of arbitrators appear to be truly conversant with DS) what is the use of suggesting that applications for clarification to the arbitrators are useful to Wikipedia? It's difficult to understand why the arbitrators continue to cling to what are clearly counter-productive remedies, and are adamant in their refusal to consider simpler and more fair and just solutions to the problem of management of conflict-ridden topics. I'm certain that Wikipedia editors at large would prefer the latter if they had any idea that such simpler and more fair and just solutions existed. However Wikipedia lacks structures for making such possibilities known to editors at large, and as well, lacks a structure for reviewing the decisions made by arbitrators (i.e. Wikipedia lacks a tribunal to which appeals of arbitrators' imposition of indefinite topic bans on 'articles' and on individual editors can be directed, contrary to accepted practice everywhere else in the world). NinaGreen ( talk) 18:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason for "broadly construed" is simple and IMO rather obvious. Few subjects are covered in a single article, and few POV-pushers will stop short of finding a related article in which to insert their POV. Evolution, for example, also has references in biology, taxonomics, age of Earth, origin of life, creationism in all its various forms, and so on. "Broadly construed" is a clause designed to forestall gaming of the system. It is intended to be applied with Clue. As far as I can see, it usually is. Guy ( Help!) 20:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Salve, Salvio. I think it would be helpful to add a paragraph in about interpretation of scope. Something like this:

It occurs to me that such an addition renders "broadly construed" somewhat redundant. Thoughts?   Roger Davies ^talk 14:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it definitely would, seeing as the policy clarifies that a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic – which, by the way, also makes the "across all namespaces" redundant. And I think it would probably be a good idea to mention it, just to prevent wikilawyering when we or AE admins forget to say "broadly construed" or "across all namespaces".

However, my goal here was finding a way for users to know in advance if the article they are about to edit is covered by their restriction or by DS, so as to avoid unpleasant surprises... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ironic laughter Having read topic ban policy, which uses the example of "all things weather", I am surprised whoever wrote that thinks a weather ban applies to New York#Climate because I can cite a very long list of RSs which emphatically state that weather is something other than climate. Lesson it is impossible to write a perfect formula that will objectively and without error inform good faith editors 100% of the time and some will still get very unpleasant "broadly construed" surprises. Solution (A) Despite what I just said if the goal of "broadly construed" is to have the same operation as the topic ban link, then it is better to write all the operational text in just one place, and discuss future tweaks to improve it in just one place. (B) In addition I would like to see a mechanism with a relatively low threshold for the sake of good faith edits by editors who happen to be topic banned. If a sizeable number of opining admins / arbs agree that applicability of DS (or a topic ban) was not obvious, then the editor should be let off the hook. Maybe sections that get a formal decision that DS applies should get a hidden comment under the section heading that says so. But then again, maybe this is another good idea on paper that can't work in practice. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: "If a sizeable number of opining admins / arbs agree that applicability of DS (or a topic ban) was not obvious, then the editor should be let off the hook." From experience NewsAndEventsGuy that's what AE appeals are for and that has result has come about in a number of cases. But on the matter of building in a mechanism: ArbCom rules on behaviour so rulings (& AE actions) are always made on a case by case basis. Over the course of years we've seen one size does not fit all and that's why discretion is being asked for and used. With that in mind less (mechanism here) is more (discretion when looking at a case), and in the end of the day all AE actions rely on the specifics of the particular ArbCom ruling.

So, for instance, somebody could be banned from editing about Storms but allowed to write about other weather or climate issues does that mean because 1 editor is subject to a ruling that all storms articles should be tagged or does it mean that that individual editor should be aware of the ruling. In the case of a subject/topic being under DS unfortunately that is equally fuzzy because (again lets say the Topic of Storms is under AC/DS but this time for everyone) if I edited an article on Jupiter and started adding contentious material on storms on Earth that edit would subject to the ban even though the article is light years away from the topic (pardon the pun).

Also from long experience editors who successfully go through a topic ban and return to positive constructive editing in the previously proscribed area do so by avoiding any potentially questionable edits. editors that become repeat offenders tend to "line step". This is something I could instance across a number of cases (especially nationalist disputes). If somebody made a mistake and is serious about coming back to WP as a constructive editor rather than winning for their cause/truth™ then they will make every effort to avoid any further harm to their reputation (same with drivers if someone takes a parking/speeding ticket seriously they'll learn not to repeat the behaviour) and vice versa. Therefore (and I apologize for the TL;DR but unless you've experienced this you want not understand it) the kind of tags you mention (while on paper a good idea) are not fit for purpose. Also it needs to be underlined the term broadly construed clarifies that a ruling is about editor behaviour on a topic anywhere on wikipedia not just a list of pages/categories and therefore it is supposed to be fuzzy-- Cailil ^talk 11:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment; and I'd just like to explicitly state what I only implied earlier.... if "broadly construed" is intended to have the same operation as the topic ban policy, then (obviously) that phrase should be replaced with a link as proposed in this thread. But if it is intended to operate differently, then the difference needs to be explained somewhere. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Again - "broadly construed" is a mare's nest - almost any other wording is preferable -- though I suggest "reasonably construed as being substantially related to the topic" as preventing some of the bungee cord stretches which have occurred in the past. Collect ( talk) 15:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• This strikes me as an attempt to legislate Clue. Can someone please cite examples of discretionary sanctions that have been incorrectly applied due to misinterpretation of the "broadly construed" wording? Guy ( Help!) 23:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Despite your scepticism, it's a common issue and clarifications etc take up large amounts of the committee's time. There was even one a few days, discussed on these very pages.   Roger Davies ^talk 10:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• Updating my view; I favor dumping or at least minimizing "broadly construed" as much as possible, in favor of a link to topic ban policy. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think "broadly construed" is a useful term. The phrasing reasonably construed as being substantially related to the topic is an open invitation for problematic editors to Wikilawyer, insisting that the articles they are editing are not "substantially" related and could not be "reasonably" construed as being related. Edward321 ( talk) 06:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree.  Sandstein  07:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@ Edward321 ( talk · contribs) and Sandstein ( talk · contribs), I have an open mind and can be persuaded by an answer to this question-

True or False,

Scope of the phrase "Topic X, broadly construed"

equals

Scope of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban applied to Topic X?

In my view, having different text for these purposes is just fine, provided the intent is to do different things. Otherwise, using nonstandardized redundant sections sets up conditions for unnecessary misunderstanding and provides an extra target for wikilawyers. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, these two constructions mean broadly (hah...) the same thing, but the reference to the topic ban policy is more confusing, in my view, particularly because there is no obvious relationship between the scope of a discretionary sanctions authorization and the scope of a topic ban. In the DS topic areas that have to do with various nationalist conflicts, we often encounter editors with limited English language comprehension skills, and so things should be kept as simple as possible. Otherwise we are sure to see complaints like "but the rules say that discretionary sanctions apply only to those who are topic-banned", or similar.  Sandstein  14:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Topic Ban section uses the term "broadly related" instead of "broadly construed", but do not see that one phasing is better than the other. The Topic Ban section is more detailed, so borrowing some of its language might be useful. Edward321 ( talk) 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Awareness (of DS) with sunset provisions

This new text reflects the various changes discussed over the last few weeks. It also includes new provisions about people who have already been sanctioned (but not had the sanction overturned on appeal) and are therefore aware of DS. Some important proposals here, so let's discuss them.   Roger Davies ^talk 12:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made two minor formatting changes and I'd suggest making/discussing the following changes:

1. Split mentioned in the final decision and subject to a sanction into i and ii so it's easier to refer to them
2. Change "and that sanction has not been successfully appealed" to "and that sanction is currently in affect for has expired in the last x time (one year or six months perhaps). To avoid situations where an editor is blocked for 24 for edit warring and can still be sanctioned without warning a couple of years later (even if they've had no involvement with the page/topic.
3. Move issued an alert to the one year section. I can see where this is coming from but expecting someone who issued an alert a or two ago (when if they were only somewhat involved, like an admin responding to a request at WP:ANEW) to remember it is a bit too fair IMHO. This is fairly low on my list, just a suggestion I was thinking of.
4. Also might be worth clarifying whether "arbitration request" refers to everything at WP:Arbitration/Requests (perhaps by linking to it) or only certain pages (eg cases and enforcement).

Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(e.c.) I recommend to omit "in the past year" in the second clause:

It appears arbitrary to assume that editors remember that discretionary sanctions are in effect for 365 days, and then forget all about them a day later. That is particularly the case for editors who have already been alerted or sanctioned multiple times.

This provision also has the potential for gaming the system, and adds an additional complication to what is already - I think you said so recently, Roger - a rather complicated and legalistic system. I recently communicated with an administrator who said that " the paperwork surrounding DS could be one reason so few admins venture into it".

Moreover, I think that this proposal substantially overestimates the importance of making sure that editors are actively aware of this particular enforcement mechanism. What should matter more, in my view, is that our important conduct policies are actively and effectively enforced in the conflict areas subject to DS. We explicitly allow administrators to indefinitely block accounts without even a warning, let alone a recent warning, and this is routinely done for instance in the case of vandalism-only accounts. In view of this, it is not understandable why imposing the lesser sanctions available via DS (that is, blocks up to a year and limited bans) should require recent, active knowledge of this peculiar mechanism.

In my view, the whole concept of notifications or alerts could just as well be abandoned altogether instead, or made optional.  Sandstein  13:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

On "gaming the system", who would edit war by leaving 366 days between edits? That's too much for even our most hardened POV-pushers.

I agree the one-year period is arbitrary, but we cannot make these alerts last for eternity. One year is a fairly sensible place to draw the line.

On awareness v. effectiveness, I think you overlook the fact that, for many people, awareness through education is an adequate deterrent. Our goal is not to hand out hundreds of sanctions, and in any case I cannot agree that an administrator's ability to deal with genuine misconduct is circumscribed to so great an extent as to make DS ineffective. Placing a greater emphasis on awareness takes away the court martial feel of the noticeboard, indeed, but it won't make the process toothless. AGK [•] 13:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I recall cases of editors who have returned after a 12-month topic ban, and on the very first day after the ban, they have piled right back in. The thing you have to remember is that for some people, Wikipedia is the single most important place ot have their POV reflected, if only to make a point. Look at the long-term war over Cold fusion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - and I haven't been back for a while but a pound says that the same POV has been steadily creeping in again over the last year. There are many, many editors who watch those who have disagreed with them, wait until they are not around, and then instantly return to the same debates, the same demands for the same content. The thing to remember is that the people that concern us here, are in the main people who absolutely will not drop the WP:STICK and back away form the deceased equine. If they would, the sanctions would hardly be necessary. IN subject matter sanctions also, you have the problem of waves of concerted POV-pushing whipped up by off-wiki campaigns. Subjects like evolution, homeopathy, cold fusion and so on are relentlessly targeted by substantial minorities who refuse to accept the scientific consensus, and refuse to accept that in matters of science, Wikipedia reflects the scientific consensus. They want to bring WP:TRUTH, and they will not give up - if they were capable of being swayed by rational debate then they would not hold the views they do. Guy ( Help!) 20:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I would remove the parenthesised text "and that sanction has not been successfully appealed". Editors cannot be meaningfully made unaware of discretionary sanctions, except by time and certainly not by the fact an appeal was granted. AGK [•] 13:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, which is why I intended they be covered for twelve by 2.i ("The editor has, in the past year ... participated in any appeal discussion about the area of conflict"). This would put them on the same footing are "ordinary" case partcipants. As Callanecc suggests above, this may need tweaking a bit to spell out exactly what arbitration processes are covered.   Roger Davies ^talk 13:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a practical reason why a one-year "sunset clause" of notifications is being considered? Have there been cases of sanctions that shouldn't have been imposed because the editor forgot about discretionary sanctions? (And even then, shouldn't the focus be on counteracting misconduct and promoting awareness of policy rather than on somewhat self-importantly promoting awareness of this enforcement mechanism?) – Another aspect to consider is that giving alerts expiration dates is, in my view, incompatible with the Committee's intention, as far as I understand it, of removing the stigma some editors perceive as attaching to a notification / warning / alert. I foresee that this clause will cause many editors to perceive an alert as a sort of one-year parole because of misconduct, which will motivate them to continue to angrily dispute or try to appeal these alerts.  Sandstein  14:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. What problem is being fixed? How many instances would involke this proposed clause? Or is it just m:creep? Guy ( Help!) 23:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A general intention of this review is to remove the stigma from alerts (formerly warnings). Making them expire after a reasonable time, and preventing them from being used against the editor for years afterwards, seems like a decent way of achieving this. It is about treating editors of DS topics more reasonably and proportionately. I absolutely disagree that making alerts lapse after a year makes them more punitive. AGK [•] 14:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think that we should avoid instruction creep. Whether or not somebody has been alerted, if they are being generally constructive, but make an occasional mistake, they should get a gentle reminder rather than a sanction. If the "occasional mistake" becomes a way to game the system, an administrator with clue should apply a sanction. We need more clue, and less bureaucracy. Jehochman ^Talk 00:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Awareness (2)

I've attempted to condense this into a single list of criteria:

Comments and further improvements welcome. AGK [•] 14:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Same point as before, can you clarify whether an "an arbitration request" refers to everything at WP:Arbitration/Requests (and if so to WP:AE?) and/or case pages or just requests for a case or for clarification/amendment. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty much in hand for DSRv3 (which I'm currently working on in Word): "participated in any process at [[WP:Arbitration/Requests|arbitration requests]], [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|arbitration enforcement]], or any appeal at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|administrators' noticeboard]], about the area of conflict".   Roger Davies ^talk 13:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this proposal is a very bad idea. First of all, I don't understand the difference between being mentioned in a final decision and being alerted: in both cases, an editor has been made aware that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for a given topic; why, then, in one case we presume that such knowledge vanishes in a year and in the other that it doesn't? Also, are we ready to grant a POV-pusher's appeal only because he was sanctioned 370 days after being alerted?

It may be a good idea to establish that an alert is vacated after a year if the editor hasn't edited the topic area in question, but if he has continued then I don't see one good reason to do so. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Involvement in arbitration proceedings suggests prima facie that the editor is much more involved in the affected topic area than the average recipient of an alert would be. Case involvement eliminates entitlement to the one-year sunset clause not because it confers greater awareness but in order to prevent making undue allowances to serial POV-pushers, which is exactly what you go on to rail against in the rest of your comment.

"Are we reading to grant…" – you may have missed the rebuttal to this point I gave at 14:16, 21 February 2014. AGK [•] 14:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Case involvement eliminates entitlement to the one-year sunset clause not because it confers greater awareness but in order to prevent making undue allowances to serial POV-pushers. So, basically, you can push your POV more freely if you happen not to have been a party to a case?

Concerning the reply you reference, I saw it and found it unconvincing – I still do, actually. Letting disruptive editors get away with disruption only because they were careful enough to wait a bit after being alerted is not what I'd consider a good idea. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There's another way of looking at this. User:POV-pusher gets an alert. All goes well for a year because either they edit elsewhere for a year (self-imposed T-ban) or they behave in the topic (self-imposed probation). Come year end, they start up their old antics but stop once they get alerted again. If they don't stop, they get sanctioned, if they do stop, it's another year-long self-imposed T-ban or self-imposed probation. Alerts are cheap, easy to do and easy to police. I'm not seeing a downside.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not easy in any sense, nor about "waiting a bit", because a year is not a short period of time. I think we're thinking about this backwards from one another: rather than making it easier for non-parties to POV-push, I think it makes it more difficult for parties. You've weighed too heavily the risk of people playing a very long game (one negative edit a year), and failed to address the problem that these alerts are a permanent black mark. AGK [•] 15:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Question about a corollary issue... Suppose you have already been alerted... let's say your "alert status" is active, and I blunder in and alert you yet again....

(A) Is there text dealing with intentionally harassing repeat alerts during an ed's active "alert status"?

(B) Is there text dealing with inadvertent good faith alerts during an ed's active "alert status"?

Please move this to another section if it would be better asked elsewhere. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 01:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Having been put through the wringer called "arbitration enforcement" (funny, I don' quite recall participating in some arbitration process!) which resulted in an absurd week-long block as a punishment for my usage of the innocuous word nationalist, I decided to investigate this murky discretionary sanctions (DS) business which resulted in a shocking discovery - it's against Wikipedia's policies! This eventually landed me on this talkpage where Arbiters and admins discuss wording minutiae of the next iteration of the DS policy page, one that would provide excuses for illegitimate blocking of even more users, further reduction of potential wikilayering (i.e. users demanding their edit rights back!), and overall unwittingly contribute to the precipitous decline of Wikipedia's editorbase. There are many unintended consequences of ArbCom overstepping the boundaries of its mandate, but I'll try to be brief and enumerate only points relevant to the matter:

1. [[ Wikipedia:Arbitration]] claims that ArbCom "does not exist to subvert community consensus" .. "or to decide matters of editorial or site policy". [[ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy]] further states: "The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognize and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced".
   1. a) Judging by the way DS are enforced, there is absolutely no difference at all between "creating policy", and "creating procedures through which policy may be enforced". There are community policies such as WP:3RR and ArbCom creates a more restrictive "procedure" such as 1RR in its decisions that any admin may enforce, which is effectively creation of a new policy that takes precedence over existing community policy regarding edit warring.
   2. b) Wikipedia:Arbitration#Prior_dispute_resolution also says that "it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before a case is filed". However, ArbCom makes decisions that are much later enforced on parties not involved in the original arbitration proceedings. In other words, editors that came years later to Wikipedia are subject to some ancient ArbCom's decision through DS, and since for them other avenues of dispute resolution have obviously not been exhausted, and since they couldn't have been implicated in the original arbitration due to failure of alternative dispute resolution avenues, this effectively means that DS are against ArbCom's own rules.
   3. c) Consequently, specifically in case of DS - the general conduct-related community-voted policies are only valid for articles in topics that ArbCom has not ruled that DS should apply, or hasn't (yet) extended DS coverage in one of those "maintenance motions". None of the Wikipedia:CONDUCT policies reflects this. These community-endorsed policies obviously do not apply to edits for hundreds of thousands of articles. Of course, updating WP:CONDUCT policies to reflect the reality how DS are actually enforced would probably put DS in the unnecessary spotlight, and we don't want to do that..
2. According to the history of the page on discretionary sanctions, it was created from previous ArbCom cases, from 2007 ARBMAC to 2010, to serve a template for future ArbCom decisions. Later, decisions in those older cases where superseded in motions that make use of the term discretionary sanction. Once the DS spread in such manner they were added to WP:BAN ^[30] which is a policy. Designating topic areas that span hundreds of thousands of articles as subject to discretionary sanctions for all Wikipedia editors, regardless of whether they were a party in an ArbCom case or not, makes it a project-wide policy. AFAICS there was no community vote for such modification of WP:BAN policy page. It should be noted that a later edit to WP:BAN DS were still referred to as a proposed policy. ^[31], and it's status upgrade from "proposed" to "approved" was unilateral by ArbCom.
3. Admins are basically interpreting ArbCom decisions that overstep the boundaries of a specific case as "laws" that they should enforce. These newly-created "laws" are eventually becoming a complex network of legalese-drenched policies dispersed over hundreds of pages. The motivation for extending the DS coverage to dozens of vaguely-defined topics was basically a lust for power by admins, to sort "disruptions" without due procedure (i.e. a normal dispute resolution process). Observe the rationale behind [[ Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia]] Quoting: "We need [...] administrative carte blanche for dealing with new disruption, à la Armenia-Azerbaijan." Later such ARBMAC-created policies are expanded to cover other topics as well, completely unrelated to the original case. One of the Arbiters described his support the the proposed motion as "maintenance motion", as if it is not a big deal. Well, it is a big deal because none of those topics were a subject of an arbitration case!
   1. a) DS is essentially an unauthorized power grab. ArbCom has been created for solving dispute in specific cases which involve specific editors, with scope and responsibilities enumerated at [[ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities]] and not to give admins powers that were not approved by the community.
   2. b) Admins are governed by WP:ADMIN policy and answer to community alone, not ArbCom. Giving admins any kind of power that circumvent or override community policies exceeds the scope and responsibility of ArbCom. ArbCom cannot touch WP:ADMIN, only make decisions regarding specific cases in which specific admins are involved.
4. The way DS are enforced is humiliating and conducive to abuse by both admins and those who submit an AE request to enforce. There are no guidelines on the length of blocks, and the criteria that requests must fulfill before submitting (and often requests are declined). Once you are sanctioned your name is publicly listed in some kind of a AE log so any successive "infraction" will get you blocked progressively longer. In my AE case observant admins also noted that I received some kind of warning five years ago, so a more lengthy block was obviously due to teach me a lesson. The kangaroo court that each and every AE enforcement is thus a mini-trial, where the same admin becomes the Judge, Jury and Executioner in one person, and his decision cannot be overturned according to ArbCom's own motion. Admins don't care about enforcement on parties that were outside the request - so if an established editor gets overwhelmed by IP trolls or sockpuppets to violate some restriction or to reduce the quality of discourse to an "actionable" level, they quickly find themselves subject to AE. This lopsided balance plays well into the hands of POV-pushers who can exploit the rules to get other editors blocked. They did it even before DS - but this way that can get it way quicker. To sum it up: ArbCom has illegally created an army of 1400+ block-happy mini-Arbiters that can act with impunity, don't care about bigger picture content-related issues at stake such as NPOV, and who enforce ArbCom's decisions on editors on which sanctions can't apply to because they were not involved in the original dispute that was being arbitrated.
5. No one should edit in fear. On more than one occasion I've seen admins threatening to invoke ARB* which grants them the power to block anyone in talkpage discussions for "tendentious editing", "disruptive editing" or a similar arbitrary reason. Either person did something wrong and should be subject to a remedy, or it did nothing wrong and such vague threats are abuse. There can only be absolute justice or none at all. The problem is of course with DS which enable such power trips, and which are abundantly facilitated with unclear wording such as "broadly construed".
6. Related to the last point are topic and edit restrictions. If you can click the [edit] button you are free to edit, period. 3RR, 1RR, topic bans and other restrictions need to be implemented in MediaWiki software as soon as possible. Admins should be able to revoke editing rights to certain pages or sets of pages to IPs (individually or with a mask) and users. Topic bans can be applied to topmost categories of a topic and cascaded to subcategories. No one violates those rules knowingly. Blocking users from editing entire Wikipedia is too draconian and only leads to editor loss. What can be done with algorithms should not be left for humans.
7. Wikipedia readership has been rising over the years, while active admin- and userbase has been shrinking. Normally the number of active admins would grow or drop linearly with the overall number of editors. But many new editors are coming, vandalism has presumably increased due to rising exposure, but overall editors are *leaving*, and not many new admins are coming. What I suspect has essentially happened is that wiki-bureaucracy has created a more effective way for them to dispense wiki-justice, and that has come at a cost of diminishing number of content creators who have been blocked unjustifiably, or have left after seeing what a Byzantine set of regulations they are subject to. Admin community and ArbCom self-optimized the dispute-resolution process so that that they have work to do by removing most of the editors involved in disputes! For DS this resulted in hundreds of blocked editors, most of which I suspect would fall into the "very active Wikipedian" category, which represents a sizable fraction of the 3,000 currently very active editors.
8. This is fundamentally a failure of applying traditional orthogonal power structures which where translated into a distributed system such as wiki. Such orthogonal power structures are always subject to human lapses of judgment with potentially far-reaching consequences over the long run. This combined with the lack of checks and balances on ArbCom had led to a subversion of sort of the Wikipedia's otherwise self-regulating body of policies. (And this with barely anyone noticing it happened!) Regardless of its benevolent intentions, ArbCom has turned itself into Wikipedia Government and Wikipadia Constitutional Court, something which I doubt that most of those who supported the ArbCom policy would endorse. This inherent problem of human nature can be easily solved by even further decentralization, but this time not of editing but of decision-making in content disputes. For example 1) articles auto-reverting themselves to a non-disputed (reviewed) version until a consensus for an edit is reached 2) introduction of some kind of editor metric, let's call it EditorRank, which would depend on not number of edits, but their quality (e.g. text added and present in current article). Editors with higher EditorRank in certain areas or globally could have more weight whem voting in content disputes etc. 3) All subjective assessments for blocks should be eliminated and furthermore forbidden. There should be a flowcharts for lengths of blocks for different block reasons. These flowcharts would presumably involve nontrivial formulas with decaying factors, so it should best be implemented separately. 4) As I mentioned previously, all sanctions on editors should be minimized in scope to narrowly target specific articles, so that editors can remain productive elsewhere. Free reign (what Fut.Perf. calls "administrative carte blanche") on long/indefinite blocks for good-faith editors has done too much damage.
9. Why is it called Arbitration Committee at all? From the discussions I saw it doesn't arbitrate anything. It should be renamed to Wikipedia Court or something. Also block should be renamed to revocation of editing rights or something less negative.
10. Since DS fall outside the scope of ArbCom, everyone currently blocked under them should have their block lifted, and those AE logs should be deleted as well.

That's all folks, thanks for reading! -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 20:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Your premise seems to be that DS is "against Wikipedia's policies" and that "ArbCom (is) overstepping the boundaries of its mandate". Working backwards,

(A) Your paragraphs 5-10 do not address your claims and so they are off point and no rebuttal is needed here.

(B) Your paragraph 4 is about admin implementation, which is also off point and no rebuttal is needed here.

(C) Your paragraph 2 essentially says DS was (allegedly)adopted without a community consensus. Beats me, I don't know the history. Someone else will have to address that.

(D) Your paragraph 1 and 3.... might (maybe) address your claim that DS is against policy or arbs overstepped their mandate. I and/or others might want to comment later. Next time you make a forceful assertion, please constrain yourself to arguments supporting the assertion and save the tangential commentary for later.

NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@ NewsAndEventsGuy: I've quoted the relevant policies regarding ArbCom's purpose and powers, and my conclusion that DS are not a policy and moreover against many true policies is, as far as I can see, logically sound. You can treat it is a premise if you wish, but arriving at a contradiction (against a policy) from an invalidated premise presumed to be true (DS are by the rules) is a valid method of proof.

I'm sorry that you wasted a few minutes reading my tangential commentary but this seems be the proper venue to post it. I don't intend to make further posts other than this reply. DS do not exist in a vacuum of wiki-law - they are a means to an end (dispute resolution), and if they have negative consequences with respect to editing atmosphere or editor departure, such consequences must be inspected and DS modified to minimize them - or aborted altogether if their net effect is negative. I for one doubt that Wikipedia would fall to pieces, which seems to be general attitude here, if DS were experimentally suspended for a few months. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 19:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• There has been a large amount of well-intentioned but fundamentally misguided commentary about the discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia is a website that people can edit provided they meet the terms of use which includes satisfying "applicable community policies". This community defers to Arbcom because there is no alternative—the project would never achieve anything if every disagreement had to be argued via lawyers in a real-world legal system. Even with the "protection" of the golden thread of justice, numerous examples of bad outcomes exist with innocent people executed, and justice denied because those who have been wronged are unable to afford legal redress. There is no good system of governance—Wikipedia just uses something that is less bad than the alternatives. Naturally pages like this are visited by several people who are unhappy that their plans have been opposed, but the overwhelming majority of editors are happy that Arbcom and its discretionary sanctions manage to keep at least a reasonable degree of calm. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  @ Johnuniq: But discretionary sanctions are not a community policy - they were created by ArbCom out of thin air through their decisions as a "procedure". They however are enforced as project-wide policies by admins, overriding true community policies. The point of contention is vis-à-vis three powers which don't seem to be explicitly spelled out anywhere:

  1. The ability of ArbCom to give all of the admins any kind of rights, or stripping them of any kind of rights for that matter, outside of a specific, submitted ArbCom case were specific admins are involved. With their vague wording and unconstrained latitude of acting on, DS de facto empower admins to act as arbiters themselves.
  2. The ability of ArbCom to subject current and future editors that were not listed in a specific, submitted ArbCom case to the decision. This is forcing the entire editor base to pay for the sins of few.
  3. The ability of ArbCom to make decisions that override community-voted policies. Given that the justification for the very existence of ArbCom is a tool of last resort, when other mechanisms of conflict resolution have been exhausted, such power makes no sense at all.

  And this is all not written anywhere, and moreover - its implications are not written anywhere. I can imagine that if all of the Wikipedia policies were rewritten to contain "This policy is only valid for articles that do not relate to Eastern Europe, Balkans, India and many other broadly construed topic areas, where every user is subject to admin sanctions should they find themselves engaged in disruptive behavior, as judged by the admin." - a lot of people would be firmly opposed to DS. But this is not written anywhere.

  There is no good system of governance - From what I can tell ArbCom was never meant to be "system of governance" - it is now however.

  overwhelming majority of editors are happy that Arbcom and its discretionary sanctions manage to keep at least a reasonable degree of calm. - Overwhelming majority of admins and arbiters I presume. I'm sure that hundreds of editors who found themselves blocked and bullied by admins threatening to invoke AE on purely subjective grounds would beg to disagree. And if three powers I listed above were subject to a community referendum where only editors would vote (no admins and arbiters due to conflict of interest), including all of the editors blocked for violating DS and who were not part of the original arbitration case whose decision got them blocked, I'm pretty sure that it would receive 60+ against votes that were necessary to overturn the 2011 ArbCom policy page.

  Also, I suspect that your choice of words, specifically keeping calm is the chief reason why DS exist - DS solve issues in much the way as Stalin's "No man - no problem" solved issue of dissenters - if there is no one to argue, there is no issue at all! Which as far as I can see is not the case - all of the contentious pages still have plenty of warnings and edit warring going on all the time. Unintended negative consequences of DS are not insignificant and have not been thoroughly inspected. Admin workload has decreased with respect to the topic areas related to disputes that were subject to AE - but not because the original issues have been solved, but because most of the parties have been blocked. If the ArbCom is unwilling to rule on different conflicts involving different editors on similar (broadly construed) topic areas, perhaps it should disband itself and community could vote in one who does. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 19:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk The premise is that enwp is governed by policies which stand in for statues in the real world is profoundly flawed. Written policy follows practice, not the other way round, and practices evolve as time goes on. The practice of asking administrators to enforce arbitration remedies is part of (cf. ArbPol v1,

9 April, 2004. Furthermore, the existing policy authorises us to create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced, specify enforcement arrangements and designate individuals for particular tasks or roles.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So where do you think the difference between "create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced" (which by policy you're allowed to do) and creating new policy (which you're not) falls? In my opinion there's a continuum between the two and the issue is that, in my opinion, the community and arbcom have a different opinion where this line falls. In mine, and it appears many other community members, discretionary sanctions falls in the latter case, but obvious most (all) of the committee think it falls in the former. I'm seriously considering starting an RfC to more firmly define what the committee is allowed to determine about how it is run, what remedies it has etc and what the community should decide. It is my opinion, and again it appears the opinion of a growing number of community members, that at the moment that balance is seriously wrong. Dpmuk ( talk) 15:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dpmuk I think that the current policy would prevent us springing DS as a brand new concept fully fledged on the community. (For what it's worth - and I added the bit about creating new policy by fiat - the old policy had no such prohibition though that didn't stop the community from ratifying it.) However thast's not what happened with DS. It evolved over ten years, in full sight of the community, and for much of that time part of WP:ANI.

I'm not clear what your problem is with DS. It's a process that's been set up to by operated by admins from the community, with appeals to the community, and with ArbCom at an arm's length from its day-to-day operation. It has undeniably brought great stability to previously troublesome and out-of-control topics. Such criticism as comes its way comes almost exclusively from sanctioned editors. This is not to say that it cannot be improved and DSR v3 (out in a couple of days) brings many changes, arising out of this discussion.

On the other broader issues you raise, I would love to see ArbCom shed most of its load. At the recent elections, I committed again to reform (see here and here). Further distancing ArbCom from DS is part of that,   Roger Davies ^talk 19:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think my problems with DS are more with the how it's come about than the what it is. I think I have two main, quite related, problems with how DS has come about. The first is that you say it's comes about over ten years with community involvement but the impression I get is that it's been ArbCom driven and by community involvement you really mean ArbCom have tried to listen to the community rather than the let the community actually decide. Hence I get the impression that DS have been presented as a bit of a fait acompli - DS as they stand or no DS and people are going to go for the first. Well at least that's my impression of what's been the case up to now. I will admit to not being around for ten years and interested in the going ons of Arbcom even less time but that's the impression I have.

My second problem is how much this whole process is being driven by ArbCom, for example in shutting down some of the more contentious discussions on this page. Sure they may have needed shutting down but if this was a community led process the people doing the shutting down could at least be seen as being uninvolved whereas Arbs are pretty much by defintion involved. For all I know the arb mailing list is full of Arbs going how can we make our job easier, I don't actually want to do anything, so how can we make DS bring about the least work possible for us. Now I doubt that's the case but I think it nicely shows why I find arbs moderating discussion on something like this somewhat suspicious. Of course all of this isn't helped by the opaque way ArbCom works - far too much in private for my opinion, and even more because ArbCom doesn't even seem to want to discuss how it works behind the scenes (I remember the arbcom wiki debacle which made me, and I suspect others, suspicious of ArbCom as there was no need to keep it's existence secret).

It is my opinion that everything about how ArbCom works, other than the real nitty gritty, should be decided on by the community using community discussion and where ArbCom members are considered involved parties and so unable to determine consensus / stop discussions etc. Although a wider issue than what we're discussing here I think this should include things like when ArbCom should accept a case, when it can use motions etc - all things that the committee currently decides and which in my opinion harms ArbCom. After all at the moment there's nothing to stop ArbCom deciding they're only going to take cases where all Arns agree to, the editors involved must all have over 100,000 edits etc etc and effectively drop their workload to zero. Do I think that will happen, no, but at the moment it could do. As I say a slight aside but it helps explain my concerns with what I see as the lack of real, meaningful, community involvement in deciding how ArbCom works, and that includes DS.

Now I do have some concerns about how DS work but frankly I've never bothered looking into them enough to make really informed comment because, as I state above, it all seems too much like a fait accompli to me. I say this to make it clear that this isn't purely a concern about how it's being done but also a concern about how that's affecting the result. Dpmuk ( talk) 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh and ping User:Roger Davies. Dpmuk ( talk) 21:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Dpmuk. To respond to your first point ("my problems with DS are more with the how it's come about than the what it is"), you're ten years too late ;) Yes, it is ArbCom driven, because it's an ArbCom remedy. That's just the way it is.

You may be missing the point that ArbCom exists to resolve problems the community cannot. If the community was able to deal with entrenched longterm disputes then DS would not be necessary. As a case in point, the community placed its own DS for Climate change in January 2010 and it collapsed under the weight of blocs of editors feuding less than six months later and a case opened. ArbCom put the topic under its own DS and, more than three years later, it is still operating smoothly. What's not to like?

On your final points about forcing ArbCom to take cases about sysop misconduct, why don't you simply set up a community desysop structure instead? Accusing ArbCom of refusing to take them out of laziness is frankly ridiculous. This is way off topic and it'll be archived in a day or two when DSR v3 goes live.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Loss of editors and subsequent decline in quality of encyclopedia (in reply to what's not to like). NE Ent 09:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And during nasty disputes, neutral editors leave in droves and the quality nose-dives. No good article was ever produced by edit-warring.   Roger Davies ^talk 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

See now, Roger Davies, I disagree with two of your points and ask you to reconsider what you wrote on the third. Firstly I disagree with your ten years too late comment. Yes, I may be ten years too late for the start of discretionary sections but just because that's how they came about that doesn't mean we have to continue with the same, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed and wrong way of reviewing them (i.e. ArbCom lead).

Secondly you've trotted out this ArbCom exists to resolve disputes the community can't thing as justification again. I see this as a complete red herring. Yes it's true that's why ArbCom exists buy I see absolutely no reason why that requires ArbCom to come up with new remedies (such as DS) at all. Yes, as part of their "solve cases" remit they obviously need to apply the range of remedies available to them to a case but in my opinion there is no reason that what the remedies are can't be community driven - and in my opinion they very much should be. In my opinion ArbCom use this "we solve cases the community can't" clause to think they have carte blanche to do what they want but I don't that that should be, or indeed, given the current policy, is the case. I'm sure the community could agree on many things, such as what the remedies should be, it's just applying them to cases that we sometimes have problems.

I think you may have misunderstood me when it comes to your sysop misconduct comment. I was never talking about those cases specifically nor was I actually accusing ArbCom of refusing to take cases (and so of being lazy). I was just pointing out that, under the current system, ArbCom could effectively stop work and the community wouldn't be able to do a thing about it - at least to the next election. Now I'm sure it would never get that far without something seismic happening but it seems to me that there's something fundamentally flawed with the system if that is at least theoretically the case. (As an aside I do think there should be a mechanism whereby the community can make ArbCom take a case but that's a discussion for else where).

See and there we go again with archive comments again, although I see your point that we've gone a little off tangent, it comments like that that give the impression that ArbCom only want to hear what they agree with here and any disagreement is quickly archived or shut down - and some Arbs (not you) do come across, to me at least, of not only acting that way but know they're acting that way and think it's appropriate. Yes, my comments may not be directly on the DS draft, but they are on why I feel people aren't willing to comment on them and why you're not engaging the community properly so is of direct relevance to this discussion as surely getting a broad range of comments and getting a, I don't even know what to call it if it's not policy, that the community, all of the community not just those that feel able to comment, can agree on is important. Dpmuk ( talk) 12:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk, I'm not quite sure why you're complaining on this page of all pages; have you read the current draft? It would actually help editors in the position you were in recently. You were blocked for calling another editor a "nationalist"; for the context in which you did so (especially it being in a controversial topic area where editors calling each other names is extremely unhelpful), I would have blocked you for 24 hours, but I think a week was completely over the top. Cases like yours demonstrate why we should wait for input from more than one admin at AE, and why the wording on proportionality that the new procedure will introduce is necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Dpmuk, what are you going on about? It seems to me that you're attempting to rewrite history to remove a procedure that is essential to the functioning of the encyclopaedia in some topic areas (imagine Israel-Palestine without admins being able to impose topic bans or other restrictions for the tendentious editing that we see there on an almost daily basis even with discretionary sanctions) because you don't like the way the procedure was created. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)