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 |
Re #2 The "discretionary" bit means that admins may use their judgment ("discretion") to apply whatever sanction they believe will fix the problem. Roger Davies talk 16:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This is my first contribution to this kind of discussion.
I was 'topic banned' following controversy in thermal physics (in general). The initial warning was a complaint about my contributions on talk pages here.
My question is, does the definition of 'an editor' WRT topic bans include 'talk page' contributions?-- Damorbel ( talk) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions are authorised for an area of conflict either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by committee motion. When it becomes apparent that discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict are no longer necessary, only the committee may rescind the authorisation of them, either at the request of any editor or on its own initiative. Unless the committee specifies otherwise, all sanctions imposed remain in force.
A log of the areas of conflict for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised is maintained at the discretionary sanctions main page.
Awareness (alt text #1) No sanction may be imposed on an editor unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is "aware" if any of the following pertain:
Somewhere along the way this has been forgotten or only partially remembered. Tying a user's awareness of DS in a topic area to a 12 month window is equally legalistic and quite arbitrary. The above point by Odysseus1479 re: appealed sanctions should point this out.
Once you are aware of something unless you have dementia, Alzheimer's or some other medical cognitive or memory based issue you remain aware. It would be better to build in AGF for lapses in memory/mistakes than add an absurd legalistic notion of awareness that ties everyone's hands. This is about discretionary sanctions not automated sanctions. Concretely my suggestion is remove the 12 months clause and leave it that if one takes part in a DS discussion one is aware of the sanctions. And in response to teh litany of "I just commented at AE on topic X" - AE discussions are not casual - you shouldn't take part if you don't want to deal with the consequences-- Cailil talk 15:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the original over Alt 1 above. But I think this would be even more clear.
Awareness (alt text #2) No sanction may be imposed on an editor unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if the editor was mentioned by name in the committee's relevant Final Decision or is under an existing sanction for the area of conflict. Otherwise, an editor is also considered to be aware if any of the following events have occurred in the last twelve months
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the input, folks. Here's an amended draft, based closely on N&EG's draft, and incorporating various comments. I've added an override for the twelve-month window. Roger Davies talk 06:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Awareness (alt text #2 amended) No sanction may be imposed on an editor unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the committee's relevant Final Decision or is under an existing sanction for the area of conflict. Otherwise, an editor is also considered aware if any of the following events have occurred in the last twelve months
Any editor apparently gaming the system by engaging in serious disruption just outside the twelve-month window may be dealt with as if the alert was still in force.
Fundamentally once you've been sanctioned (unless the sanction was out of process and/or a result of sysop misconduct) your name is on the final decision page and in my view one can never become unaware after that point. So even if an appeal is granted this will not make them unaware - in fact it'll make them more aware of the RFAR ruling.
Thus I'd suggest changing is under an existing sanction for the area of conflict to has been sanctioned in relation to the area of conflict.-- Cailil talk 11:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Once sanctioned (not admonished, alerted or warned - sanctioned) nobody should EVER be considered "unaware". That doesn't mean that they are "stained", in fact it should be communicated that reforming & being aware & abiding by the rules is better than claiming unawareness & repeatedly line-stepping. I'm not sure how this (rewarding reform) can be done because any time-based system for "awareness" will always mitigate against rewarding reform, & unfortunately (& unintentionally) facilitate rules-lawyering-- Cailil talk 14:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the 12 month window is for people who are not continually active in a topic area but who return after an extended absence. If someone receives a sanction, especially a time-limited one, then leaves the topic area, you cannot expect them to know whether the area is still (or now) under discretionary sanctions a couple of years later. For example in early 2005, shortly after I began editing, I was involved in the then-contentious area of Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, but I haven't edited the subject for several years, can't even remember what the dispute was about and have no idea whether it is still contentious or not. It didn't raise to the level of topic bans, but if it had any sanction I received would have long expired. I would definitely need an alter to let me know if the topic was now under discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm really only talking about the situation where someone has been banned/blocked that they should always be cognizant of an RFAR. Especially when the criteria for that sanction being lifted is cognizance of the RFAR ruling. At least in the case of indef sanctions (where they can be reimposed if misconduct recurs) we need to say that 12 months good behaviour does not prove ignornace (i.e unawareness)-- Cailil talk 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Well I think we're still talking at cross purposes Thryduulf but if you're okay with this then so be it. It less that a repeat offender repeat offending will be a disaster and more that this will cause bureaucracy and put new sysops off AE IMHO (& I honestly still believe that it is at variance with the way that we administer sanctions and appeals in quite a significant & illogical way). We've ended up creating a new level of bureaucracy, and a new technical definition for awareness of DS in a process that was initiated because of excessive legalistic thinking at AE in general - that paradox is fundamentally concerning to me. But if consensus here is that a time based window has to happen then fine. But I reserve the right to say "I told you so" (yet I hope I wont get the chance)-- Cailil talk 14:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
In general, I recommend cutting much of the rules creep about alerts, such as the one-per-year rule. The more you legislate here, the more you will have to face complaints or clarification requests about editors using these rules as tools in their feuds with one another. The focus should be on making people aware of the rules and enforcing them effectively, not creating an overly complicated procedural framework. Sandstein 11:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I've added words about formal/informal to the new draft below, Roger Davies talk 08:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
My main concern about DS is the alerts. I've seen them used as weapons to silence editors with a particular point of view. I'd prefer if only admins could post alerts but since that is unlikely to come to pass, I'll post a couple of other concerns:
Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the formal "alerts" requred by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{ Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted.
An alert expresses no finding of fault and is informational in nature. It cannot be rescinded or appealed and automatically expires twelve months after it was issued. The text of the standard alert template forms part of the procedure and may be modified only with the committee's consent.
No editor should receive more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Editors who issue alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.
This incorporates the point about formal/informal alerts. Please read this for creep/drift, Roger Davies talk 08:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In this discussion, when an editor says "alert" they might be talking about
To reduce confusion, I think we need to coin a term. At the expense of adding words, here are some suggested tweaks to hopefully make the draft more clear and to really hammer home the FYI friendly nature of the alerts, so that this new attitude can take root as quickly as possible.
A "DSAlert" is hereby defined as the giving or receipt of a standard template message approved by the committee, currently {{ Ds/alert}}. The text of the standard alert template forms part of the procedure and may be modified only with the committee's consent.
A DSAlert
- Neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault,
- Is purely informational,
- Automatically expires after twelve months, and
- Cannot be rescinded or appealed
The committee intends the DSAlert to only be an "FYI" that makes editors aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect and provides information about the procedure, nothing more or less.
The only way to give an editor a DSAlert is by posting the approved template on the talk page of the editor being notified. Any editor may give another a DSAlert for an area of conflict. Whether or not the template has been given, any other commentary about discretionary sanctions posted on another's talk page must conform with existing wikipedia principles and the final ruling in the case or the speaker may incur WP:BOOMERANG sanctions.
No editor should receive more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Editors who issue alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.
Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Some admins here, e.g. Sandstein and Calil, have some valid points that there's a chain of reasoning problem in the wording, even some outright contradictions; Calil has some suggestions on how to move the draft forward. But we need to account for the fact that some admins are markedly more prone to proposing year-long blocks/topic bans than average, and generally treating AE as a "special" zone in which there are greatly "enhanced" (in the legalistic, negative sense) risks for bringing or even participating in dispute resolution in that forum, and in which they in particular are "needed" to enforce these enhanced risks, despite the fact that none of this treating of Wikipedia a police role-playing game or a moot court serves the interests of the community at all. Sandstein's argument here seems to be advocating for a clear entitlement for admins to pursue such blocks without question, based solely on individual administrative discretion. I'd have to oppose that in no uncertain terms. But I would like to see the wording clearer, as it really isn't fair to AE-participating admins to have uncertainty about what they can and cannot reasonably impose as sanctions, under what circumstances.
I think it would be disastrous to explicitly permit, or worse yet (for disputation levels) to implicitly suggest the permissibility of excessive solutions, especially on the basis that the admin most interested in responding is somehow most likely to know the appropriate thing to do (in point of fact, hotness to act it's a red flag of an WP:INVOLVED admin, and I think we all know this; unfortunately it means that part of the basis for DS is arguably logically unsound). The old canard from the early 2000s, that we just trust admins to do what is right because that's why we gave them the mop in the first place <insert warm fuzzy, tiny-editing-community feelings here>, is clearly not working in the 2010s. WP has changed, the admin community has many participants who do little encyclopedic editing work and are mostly dedicated wiki-cops in their time on the system, with insufficient common ground and empathy with regular editors. Not unrelatedly, "lowly editor" faith in both ArbCom and administration generally is at an all-time low. The tools are being wielded more like sidearms than mops by quite a few admins who specialize is this sort of enforcement instead of more varied and diverse administrative functions, and broader editing generally. (Some quantitative limits could help resolve that issue, but that's out-of-band for this talk page.)
Meanwhile, it's clear that many admins themselves feel more put-upon than ever, more reluctant to act, more liable to be charged with wrongdoing, and many of them have resigned, too; we're not just losing good editors. DS vaugness "setting up" admins to feel they have more leeway than the community is actually granting them, and thereby entrap themselves, is not helping.
I honestly think this calls DS entirely into question in the long run. The problems with it that have cost this project about a year of my and several other productive editors' participation, and are chilling the participation of many others, while doing very little to rein in actual inveterate disruptors, are still not resolved. I applaud the putsch to reform this controversial approach to administration, but have to note that it's still controversial, for reasons that haven't changed. One possible solution is to have AE decide that an ArbCom enforcement must happen, and then remand this decision to AN/ANI for actual enforcement, so that the remedy is decided by the admin community, not by some "lone star" maverick admin with an axe to grind or simply a fondness for aggressive solutions. Or make AE another AN sub-board, subject to normal procedure there from top to bottom. But theses idea are out-of-band too. I'd like to see them raised somewhere seriously, where ever that might best be discussed.
In the short term, this wording in this section of the draft is problematic, but in more and sometimes different ways than some admins suggest. It would be convenient but a bad idea to resolve these problems in a way that only addresses enforcer-admin-focused concerns while bypassing countervailing ones.
Finally, the ability of a clearly over-involved admin to escape a finding of involvement by "letter of the law" bureaucratically gaming the system needs to be curtailed, and this is the section in which to do so. Pursuit of sanctions against an editor by one admin or tagteam thereof, in venue after venue, is a problem, no matter how much they protest that they're just doing normal admin work. A displayed anger and impatience with a particular discussion type or topic (a "how dare you argue about that trivia?!" attitude) is every bit as much of a "dog in the fight" as taking one side or the other in that dispute, and in a sense is bigger dog. A desire to censor and sanction both sides for failure to shut up about a topic you can't stand is not necessarily less involvement, but may be double the involvement, especially if the dispute is legitimate and part of the consensus-building process (versus, say, the ethnocentric hate-mongering at the root of a number of RFARB cases). This is especially true when the dispute is about internal WP issues, not article content. Abuse of AE and DS to silence editors – sometimes just for using dispute resolution not for engaging in actual content disputes – is an ongoing problem here. The "discretionary" part not seeming to have bounds, and AE being its own microcosm, as if other rules did not apply, together form a serious systemic weakness that can be exploited and long-term gamed to the direct detriment of good-faith editors by any POV-pushing admin or tagteam. They also lead to an insular AE subculture increasingly at odds with the rest of the project. Whether one believes all of this has already happened or not, the clear potential for it is enough reason to nip it in the bud. There is certainly already a common perception that it has all happened, and that's problematic by itself for ArbCom and WP.
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
There's something wrong when a system which should be used to protect what is important (mainspace) is used to "protect" what is not (AE). As a non-content, non-admin editor, I consider it much more high risk to open an AE thread than to file an arbcom request -- if I screw up the latter the worse that will probably happen is a clerk will revert it and leave me a note on my talk page. Screw an AE request and I'm likely to blocked / restricted or some other nonsense. NE Ent 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Very brief responses. If you'd like to discuss specifics to a case in more detail, you're very welcome to do so on my talk page.
Roger Davies talk 02:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I got a question of general nature, related to this sub heading. It concerns the closing statement made by T. Canens in an old case from 2011, here, which I'll quote fully:
"Discretionary sanctions address editor conduct, not admin conduct. The phrasing of the remedy itself draws a clear distinction between editors and administrators, and so admin actions are never sanctionable misconduct under discretionary sanctions (cf. judicial immunity). Therefore, while AE may overturn individual admin actions for involvement on appeal, I agree that the discretionary sanctions do not give us the power to declare an admin involved. It would indeed be very surprising for one admin to have the power to unilaterally declare another admin involved (remember that the discretionary sanctions allows for action by "any uninvolved administrator"; what a consensus of admins can do under the discretionary sanctions a single admin may do as well), and we should assume that arbcom did not mean for such an unorthodox and irregular delegation of authority unless the remedy allows for no other reasonable interpretation. I voice no opinion on the merits of the block. T. Canens (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)"
Of course this statement was made by a single individual so it may not represent actual policy or even practice. But T. Canens was and has been very active in AE enforcement, is involved in the discussion of this draft and is a member of the Arbitration Committee. Yet, I find this statement both disturbing in its implications and ... well, monumentally stupid.
It appears to say that admins are automatically exempt from discretionary sanctions. Hell. It doesn't "appear" to say so, it says so: "admin actions are never sanctionable misconduct under discretionary sanctions". And then, in some kind of "I play lawyer on Wikipedia" it invokes the ... principle of judicial immunity as if it was in any way relevant or applicable.
The rest of that paragraph is essentially irrelevant wikilawyering. But I do want this clarified. Are admins automatically exempt from being subject to discretionary sanctions by virtue of having admin status? Are admin actions automatically exempt from discretionary sanctions by virtue of having admin status? Is there a qualitative difference between "admin misconduct" and "editor misconduct"? If so, what exactly is it? Like, "admin misconduct" is abusively blocking someone or moving a move-protected page or protecting to "own version" and that can never be subject to discretionary sanctions?
In general the problem with this draft, IMO, is in what it leaves out, not in what it says. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 10:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I iterate my concerns about "broadly construed" being usable as a sledgehammer where "reasonably construed as directly related" would suffice. Collect ( talk) 12:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
For instance, if I were to impose, a 2-rr per fortnight on an editor, such a sanction could be both novel and non-novel depending on what the interpretation of the requirement is: if, as you say, a novel sanction is one that isn't mentioned in the examples, then this restriction would not be novel (it's a revert restriction); if, on the other hand, a novel sanction is one that has never been imposed before, then I think this restriction would qualify as novel, as I'm pretty sure it has never been imposed before.
Anyway, I'm not sure this provision is necessary: every sanction can be appealed and there are various levels of a-posteriori review, so weird sanctions can be quickly lifted and the record purged. Also, discretionary sanctions are based upon the idea that we trust the judgement of our administrators; why, then, should we say "we trust your judgement, then again we occasionally don't". Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Second, I'm happy if it goes, but I'd like to see it discussed a bit first, Roger Davies talk 12:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The entire concept of appeal means that the decision is reviewed by a higher authority. AN, being the pool of all administrators, is necessarily a higher authority than AE, a tiny pool of administrators working on a particular sort of activity. AE is also obviously appealable directly to ArbCom (hopefully more often via ARCA than RFARB, which is way more bureaucratic). If ArbCom wants appeals to mandatorily go through AN first before ARCA, that's up to them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 21:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
To get this discussion on track could people post their impressions of discretionary sanctions that worked well, and those that worked badly? If there were real examples to discuss, some conclusions might be possible. Railing against ArbCom with legalistic arguments is not productive. If it can be shown that DS don't work, then they won't be used; if they are shown to be useful in certain situations, we need to be able to identify them. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
In v2 I presented evidence that these alerts are a disaster waiting to happen. For whatever reason many admins have no freaking clue how intimidating the alert is to someone who has no knowledge of discretionary sanctions. That combined with the warfare mentalities that are commonplace in DS topics, the act of one perceived "side" alerting another perceived "side" is likely to cause needless friction and disruption (see the v2 link for a real-life example of this). I therefore seriously suggest something like the following, containing text that should be perhaps even sillier than what is there now.
This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for topics relating to , which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.
Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.{{
Z33}}
vzaak 04:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
How this message is perceived:
This message is to scare the shit out of you, for the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for topics relating to something which you may have edited, thereby placing yourself in a heap of trouble. The Committee's ominous decision can be read here.
Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further productive editing to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators will impose sanctions willy nilly for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which they dislike. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks, thumb screws, and will make Theon Grayjoy's torture look like a spa treatment. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please get your head checked, as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you are crazy enough to want to proceed.{{
Z33}}
Somehow this template needs to be reworked to assume good faith. How about reassuring editors that they can edit normally, that if they are acting in good faith, they won't be sanctioned, that the special conditions are designed to make editing in the area more pleasant, by making it easier to remove any disruptive editors. Be on the lookout for disruptive editors. Report them here. Don't worry, if you are contributing productively, you are not going to be the target of any enforcements. Please ask for help here or there or there if you have lingering concerns. Welcome, we love you, edit onward... Jehochman Talk 03:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
How about changing the beginning of the template text as follows
[Placeholder for BLPSE discussion, per recent motion] Roger Davies talk 02:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
At the end of the Housekeeping section, there's a light yellow bar that says This indicates the end of the draft v2 updated Discretionary Sanction remedy.
Shouldn't that be "draft v3"?
BlueMoonset (
talk) 00:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I had a look at one section. This bit could be simplified, even though it would involve some duplication. I've made some trivial edits (in most cases underlined to mark them out for your consideration. There are two substantive changes: singular to plural in the second point, and plural to singular in the last point.
EXISTING
No sanction may be imposed on an editor unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:
SUGGESTED:
No sanction may be imposed on an editor unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is "aware" if any of the following pertain:
Tony (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
A few tiddlies that may or may not be useful ... strike-out for suggested removal, underlines for suggested insertion:
For the purposes of arbitration enforcement Definitions:
I wondered about "enforcing"—under the definition, such an admin would be placing the DS notification(s), not necessarily enforcing anything; and it's a high-level word that might be better as a more neutral term.
Postscript: An 'editor is anyone who may edit and has edited ..." – please check that this is not gameable. So an "editor" escapes the definition if they can't currently edit (i.e. they're blocked or banned). I may be splitting hairs, though.
Tony (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
More suggestions—
(A) Under "Behavioural expectations":
Editors editing within the area of conflict are expected to: Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to:
Failure to meet any behavioural expectation is grounds for sanctioning.
Comment: why not remove "editorial and" from the third point? Does it mean if you don't follow the MOS, or use faulty grammar, you might be sanctioned? Perhaps if it's retained it could be clarified?
(B) "may be subject to any remedy, including desysopping, that the committee consider appropriate." -> "may be subject to any remedy the committee consider appropriate, including desysopping."
(C) "or any other measures which the imposing administrator reasonably believes are necessary to prevent disruption" – "reasonably" is what went on in the admin's head, and is thus not contestable by the committee or anyone else. If you mean "or any other reasonable measures", could the word be relocated? Otherwise removed?
(D) "No sanction may be modified without:
Thereafter, the sanctioned editor may:
Problem in "Thereafter", which presumably refers back to a sequence that hasn't been stated as such. Do you mean "If a sactioned editor has been unsuccessful in attempts to modify a sanction via 1. and 2., the sanctioned editor they may:" ...?
"Noticeboard" is lower case elsewhere on the page.
(E) "A" is standard in legal text in a few places here where "the" is used; please consider changing. For example: "Only the an editor under sanction may appeal the sanction." Withdrawn ... I misunderstood.
Tony
(talk) 14:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
(F) "Nothing in this provision prohibits an administrator from superseding an existing sanction with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the original sanction was applied." – I don't think "supersede" can be transitive. Please consider: "Nothing in this provision prohibits an administrator from superseding replacing an existing sanction with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the original sanction was applied." – or "supplanting", but "replacing" seems plainer.
(G) "Nothing in this current version of the Discretionary Sanctions ...". Could you downcase as in the page title and elsewhere in the main text?
(H) "on-going" – I think "ongoing" is pretty standard nowadays.
(I) Don't like the plural "committee", like a cricket team; but <sigh> it's no big deal: the committee consider, And it's inconsistent: the Nutshell has "the Arbitration Committee has", not "have", twice. Further down after No. 3 in "Appealing and modifying sanctions", there's a "the committee has".
Sorry to bloat: first time I've really been through the text properly. Nice work by those who've shaped it: should be a simple reform with strong community backing, frankly, and I see lots of emotion spilling from past perceived (some actual, probably) injustices. Please, let's pull together and get this reform on the road. This is no time for personal pride, for keeping alive the hurt that we've all felt as wiki editors at one time or another. Tony (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The Vision "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
"The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage."
— Tim Simonite, Technology Review [5]
Ouch. That's embarrassing. Aren't you embarrassed? I'm embarrassed -- I certainly don't go around sharing my wiki-addiction with folks in real life. If that's true we need to address it, if that's not true we need to address the perception that it is.
What's that got to do with Discretionary sanctions?
When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.
— John Muir
I've previously opined with some length about the strange duality of the committee's important / unimportant duality at The Committee, so I'll just briefly reiterate that while the number of editors by ArbCom may be relatively low, the symbolic importance of your actions is high before it affects perception of Wikipedia as a whole.
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee: "It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve."
Simplifying for brevity, administrators can be classified as authoritarian -- often acting quickly and decisively with regards to the many many wp-this and wp-that's Wikipedia is filled with, and holistic -- taking a more nuanced approach appropriate to a place where one of the five big rules is not to be overly fixated on the rules. While I personally believe strongly the holistic types are better for Wikipedia, all-in-all, I suspect both are necessary. (I'm reminded of the two Kirks in The Enemy Within; unfortunately, our article leaves out the writer Richard Matheson's insight that both parts of Kirk's personality were necessary for him to function effectively.)
A close observer of past arbcom's will note we tend to elect committees with both types of editors. Although the committee has some sort of theoretical "absolute power" -- certainly folks in the community foolishly look to arbcom to solve all problems -- this mix of authoritarian and holistic, a mind numbing bureaucracy, the fact that arbcom takes few cases, and is slow to act results in an extremely judicious in its use of power.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: Arbcom can delegate its power. It can't delegate its wisdom |
In normal space, these two tendencies -- authoritarian and holistic -- counterbalance each other. The particular rules of admining -- the so called "second mover advantage" -- mean that the worst excesses of authoritarian admins can be quickly opposed by holistic types, and pushback from holistic admins and experienced editors acts as prior restraint of overly aggressive admin actions.
Discretionary sanctions destroy that balance. Overly strict sanctions are locked in by arbcom authority, and the primary appeal venue (AE) is a harsh, authoritarian place where merely screwing up a request can get you sanctioned.
Changing the rules for swaths of the pedia is beyond the stated remit of the committee ("disputes between editors"). I understand the community has at least passively accepted DS, so I'm not making a legalistic argument; I'm saying the committee itself should seriously reconsider whether DS is appropriate given its founding mandates.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Quote: I'm saying the committee itself should seriously reconsider whether DS is appropriate given its founding mandates. (NE Ent)
It's been apparent for months the committee, or at least the subportion actively participating here, is not interested in an actual review of the DS process. The focus remains on "efficiency," "less disruption" and less work for the committee, not the important questions, which should be:
To the extent these questions have been addressed, it has been with intellectually shallow glib responses, (e.g. 'It's obvious'). The fact of the matter is the span of Wikpedia -- about five million articles (6,818,163) -- makes such self-centric observations of little value. (Of course, this means I don't know the answer any more than anyone else -- DS could be the greatest thing since sliced bread). What the committee should be doing is formulating actually meaningful questions about the process, determining what data is necessary to address them, and then soliciting support from the wikinerds (e.g. WP:VPT) to gather the data, and then seriously analyze the data to determine what direction to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
There's also the community cost of the appearance that ArbCom has run off the rails, that DS has turned AE into a horrid chimera of a "Wild West" shoot-'em'-up kill zone and a Kafka-esque nightmare of harsh legalism, and that the general inescapability of whatever weird sanctions some self-important wikicop slaps on you means that Wikipedia administration is becoming increasingly arbitrary (in the negative sense) and dictatorial, like a world overrun with clones of Napoleon. It's directly attracting the wrong kinds of people to seek admin status. Yes, DS does help to reign in certain things, like race-baiting hatefests on a few perennial hot-spot topics, but it's been applied in ways that, e.g., thwart consensus building on WP guidelines, and even censure people for using WP's dispute resolution forums. I'm still being pilloried for the latter in the log at WP:ARBATC. The very idea that failing to bring a successful case at AE is going to lead to a "boomerang" sanction against someone is insane, juvenile and stupid. It's like being sent to prison if the burglar you reported gets acquitted.
Treating AE like some kind of magical kingdom with special rules and uniquely empowered paladins is having terrible effects on the entire editing community, who have taken a long time to absorb WP's already over-complicated rules and norms, only to be told these can now be thrown out the window on a whim, in favor of wildly inconsistent, punitive actions by people who in some cases focus on doing almost nothing but telling other people what they can't do here. It's also worsening the public perception of Wikipedia, and those who spend most of their time in AE simply don't see any of it, as they're lost in the fantasy. This is not a game.
I told someone the other day that had been one of the two most active Wikipedia editors on pool and billiards articles. His response was "Are you fuckin' crazy? Why you wanna waste time with that buncha psycho control freaks?". This did not come from some techno-libertarian geek who may have come here and gotten into online community politics squabbles, but from a blue-collar pool league player who probably spends less than an hour a week online. Not a good sign. WP's editor-hatefulness is already legendary even among people who have probably never considered editing [yet, but now probably not ever]. You don't need a business or communications degree to know that "widely distrusted and scorned by potential as well as actual customers" is the absolute worst public relations situation to ever be in. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 22:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I got notice that this page is at a new stage in development. I have not been following the history of this work and do not understand the nuance of controversy around this, but upon looking lightly at it, it seems apparent to me that a lot of thought has gone into this and everything appears to be orderly and right with this. I am sorry that I am unable to give any more thoughtful comment about this but thanks to those who have worked on this. It seems useful and encouraging. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement is conducted at a designated noticeboard, currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
At that noticeboard, discussions concerning sanctions against any editors concerning any area listed as being under "Discretionary Sanctions" by the Arbitration Committee are held. That Committee has the power to amend or remove any area described as subject to sanctions through that noticeboard.
Any misbehavior by an editor working within an area discussed at the noticeboard may be dealt with by sanction after discussion, and who has been made reasonably aware that the area is so listed. To that end, any editor may notify such an editor that the area is under discretionary sanctions.
Administrators reasonably considered as either involved with the area of dispute or with the editor being discussed may not participate as administrators in determining sanctions. In addition, administrators may not impose undue or disproportionate sanctions, but shall only impose such sanctions as would be reasonably anticipated by the Arbitration Committee. If a sanction is appealed, that administrator imposing the sanction may not also act as an administrator in any such appeal.
All sanctions shall be logged on the appropriate page or pages designated by the Arbitration Committee in any decision regarding the area under discretionary sanctions. No sanction shall be altered without the consent of the administrator originally imposing the sanction. If such an administrator is no longer an administrator or is inactive, such appeals shall be made to the Arbitration Committee and not to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.
Prior sanctions made under discretionary sanctions are not affected by this revision.
Which I think is shorter, clearer, and pretty simple except for the required buzzwords. I do remove the "only the editor under sanction" bit from the appeals process because I fail to see why it is either useful or needed here. It is still unreadable, but far less unreadable than the first proposal. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The "misbehavior" language pretty much sums up the dismissive attitude of way too many admins towards non-admins, that non-adins are naughty children who are not to be taken seriously. If they were talking about admins or arbs, it would be "conduct". — Neotarf ( talk) 14:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps "acts specifically contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or the sanctions placed by the arbitration Committee" would make "misbehavior" a far less utile word here? Collect ( talk) 22:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there any appetite among AE admins to try to compile a short document detailing the best practices currently followed at AE? I think that such a page, explaining to unfamiliar users how things actually work at arbitration enforcement, might be useful both for users (being reported or reporting others) and for previously uninvolved admins who wanted to give AE a shot. Another thing I think might be useful would be compiling some sort of sentencing guidelines; these would have to be merely advisory in nature (so as not to excessively limit admin discretion), but, in my opinion, would be useful both to users and to enforcing admins... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Date | Archive/Case | Issue | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
2012-09 | [link to archive#Case name] | Broke 1RR (one-off) | Warned. |
2012-10 | [link to archive#Case name] | Edit-warring (3RR) | 24-hour block |
2013-01 | [link to archive#Case name] | Personal attacks | Topic-banned |
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 |
Re #2 The "discretionary" bit means that admins may use their judgment ("discretion") to apply whatever sanction they believe will fix the problem. Roger Davies talk 16:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This is my first contribution to this kind of discussion.
I was 'topic banned' following controversy in thermal physics (in general). The initial warning was a complaint about my contributions on talk pages here.
My question is, does the definition of 'an editor' WRT topic bans include 'talk page' contributions?-- Damorbel ( talk) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions are authorised for an area of conflict either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by committee motion. When it becomes apparent that discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict are no longer necessary, only the committee may rescind the authorisation of them, either at the request of any editor or on its own initiative. Unless the committee specifies otherwise, all sanctions imposed remain in force.
A log of the areas of conflict for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised is maintained at the discretionary sanctions main page.
Awareness (alt text #1) No sanction may be imposed on an editor unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is "aware" if any of the following pertain:
Somewhere along the way this has been forgotten or only partially remembered. Tying a user's awareness of DS in a topic area to a 12 month window is equally legalistic and quite arbitrary. The above point by Odysseus1479 re: appealed sanctions should point this out.
Once you are aware of something unless you have dementia, Alzheimer's or some other medical cognitive or memory based issue you remain aware. It would be better to build in AGF for lapses in memory/mistakes than add an absurd legalistic notion of awareness that ties everyone's hands. This is about discretionary sanctions not automated sanctions. Concretely my suggestion is remove the 12 months clause and leave it that if one takes part in a DS discussion one is aware of the sanctions. And in response to teh litany of "I just commented at AE on topic X" - AE discussions are not casual - you shouldn't take part if you don't want to deal with the consequences-- Cailil talk 15:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the original over Alt 1 above. But I think this would be even more clear.
Awareness (alt text #2) No sanction may be imposed on an editor unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if the editor was mentioned by name in the committee's relevant Final Decision or is under an existing sanction for the area of conflict. Otherwise, an editor is also considered to be aware if any of the following events have occurred in the last twelve months
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the input, folks. Here's an amended draft, based closely on N&EG's draft, and incorporating various comments. I've added an override for the twelve-month window. Roger Davies talk 06:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Awareness (alt text #2 amended) No sanction may be imposed on an editor unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the committee's relevant Final Decision or is under an existing sanction for the area of conflict. Otherwise, an editor is also considered aware if any of the following events have occurred in the last twelve months
Any editor apparently gaming the system by engaging in serious disruption just outside the twelve-month window may be dealt with as if the alert was still in force.
Fundamentally once you've been sanctioned (unless the sanction was out of process and/or a result of sysop misconduct) your name is on the final decision page and in my view one can never become unaware after that point. So even if an appeal is granted this will not make them unaware - in fact it'll make them more aware of the RFAR ruling.
Thus I'd suggest changing is under an existing sanction for the area of conflict to has been sanctioned in relation to the area of conflict.-- Cailil talk 11:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Once sanctioned (not admonished, alerted or warned - sanctioned) nobody should EVER be considered "unaware". That doesn't mean that they are "stained", in fact it should be communicated that reforming & being aware & abiding by the rules is better than claiming unawareness & repeatedly line-stepping. I'm not sure how this (rewarding reform) can be done because any time-based system for "awareness" will always mitigate against rewarding reform, & unfortunately (& unintentionally) facilitate rules-lawyering-- Cailil talk 14:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of the 12 month window is for people who are not continually active in a topic area but who return after an extended absence. If someone receives a sanction, especially a time-limited one, then leaves the topic area, you cannot expect them to know whether the area is still (or now) under discretionary sanctions a couple of years later. For example in early 2005, shortly after I began editing, I was involved in the then-contentious area of Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, but I haven't edited the subject for several years, can't even remember what the dispute was about and have no idea whether it is still contentious or not. It didn't raise to the level of topic bans, but if it had any sanction I received would have long expired. I would definitely need an alter to let me know if the topic was now under discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm really only talking about the situation where someone has been banned/blocked that they should always be cognizant of an RFAR. Especially when the criteria for that sanction being lifted is cognizance of the RFAR ruling. At least in the case of indef sanctions (where they can be reimposed if misconduct recurs) we need to say that 12 months good behaviour does not prove ignornace (i.e unawareness)-- Cailil talk 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Well I think we're still talking at cross purposes Thryduulf but if you're okay with this then so be it. It less that a repeat offender repeat offending will be a disaster and more that this will cause bureaucracy and put new sysops off AE IMHO (& I honestly still believe that it is at variance with the way that we administer sanctions and appeals in quite a significant & illogical way). We've ended up creating a new level of bureaucracy, and a new technical definition for awareness of DS in a process that was initiated because of excessive legalistic thinking at AE in general - that paradox is fundamentally concerning to me. But if consensus here is that a time based window has to happen then fine. But I reserve the right to say "I told you so" (yet I hope I wont get the chance)-- Cailil talk 14:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
In general, I recommend cutting much of the rules creep about alerts, such as the one-per-year rule. The more you legislate here, the more you will have to face complaints or clarification requests about editors using these rules as tools in their feuds with one another. The focus should be on making people aware of the rules and enforcing them effectively, not creating an overly complicated procedural framework. Sandstein 11:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I've added words about formal/informal to the new draft below, Roger Davies talk 08:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
My main concern about DS is the alerts. I've seen them used as weapons to silence editors with a particular point of view. I'd prefer if only admins could post alerts but since that is unlikely to come to pass, I'll post a couple of other concerns:
Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the formal "alerts" requred by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{ Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted.
An alert expresses no finding of fault and is informational in nature. It cannot be rescinded or appealed and automatically expires twelve months after it was issued. The text of the standard alert template forms part of the procedure and may be modified only with the committee's consent.
No editor should receive more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Editors who issue alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.
This incorporates the point about formal/informal alerts. Please read this for creep/drift, Roger Davies talk 08:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In this discussion, when an editor says "alert" they might be talking about
To reduce confusion, I think we need to coin a term. At the expense of adding words, here are some suggested tweaks to hopefully make the draft more clear and to really hammer home the FYI friendly nature of the alerts, so that this new attitude can take root as quickly as possible.
A "DSAlert" is hereby defined as the giving or receipt of a standard template message approved by the committee, currently {{ Ds/alert}}. The text of the standard alert template forms part of the procedure and may be modified only with the committee's consent.
A DSAlert
- Neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault,
- Is purely informational,
- Automatically expires after twelve months, and
- Cannot be rescinded or appealed
The committee intends the DSAlert to only be an "FYI" that makes editors aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect and provides information about the procedure, nothing more or less.
The only way to give an editor a DSAlert is by posting the approved template on the talk page of the editor being notified. Any editor may give another a DSAlert for an area of conflict. Whether or not the template has been given, any other commentary about discretionary sanctions posted on another's talk page must conform with existing wikipedia principles and the final ruling in the case or the speaker may incur WP:BOOMERANG sanctions.
No editor should receive more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Editors who issue alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.
Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Some admins here, e.g. Sandstein and Calil, have some valid points that there's a chain of reasoning problem in the wording, even some outright contradictions; Calil has some suggestions on how to move the draft forward. But we need to account for the fact that some admins are markedly more prone to proposing year-long blocks/topic bans than average, and generally treating AE as a "special" zone in which there are greatly "enhanced" (in the legalistic, negative sense) risks for bringing or even participating in dispute resolution in that forum, and in which they in particular are "needed" to enforce these enhanced risks, despite the fact that none of this treating of Wikipedia a police role-playing game or a moot court serves the interests of the community at all. Sandstein's argument here seems to be advocating for a clear entitlement for admins to pursue such blocks without question, based solely on individual administrative discretion. I'd have to oppose that in no uncertain terms. But I would like to see the wording clearer, as it really isn't fair to AE-participating admins to have uncertainty about what they can and cannot reasonably impose as sanctions, under what circumstances.
I think it would be disastrous to explicitly permit, or worse yet (for disputation levels) to implicitly suggest the permissibility of excessive solutions, especially on the basis that the admin most interested in responding is somehow most likely to know the appropriate thing to do (in point of fact, hotness to act it's a red flag of an WP:INVOLVED admin, and I think we all know this; unfortunately it means that part of the basis for DS is arguably logically unsound). The old canard from the early 2000s, that we just trust admins to do what is right because that's why we gave them the mop in the first place <insert warm fuzzy, tiny-editing-community feelings here>, is clearly not working in the 2010s. WP has changed, the admin community has many participants who do little encyclopedic editing work and are mostly dedicated wiki-cops in their time on the system, with insufficient common ground and empathy with regular editors. Not unrelatedly, "lowly editor" faith in both ArbCom and administration generally is at an all-time low. The tools are being wielded more like sidearms than mops by quite a few admins who specialize is this sort of enforcement instead of more varied and diverse administrative functions, and broader editing generally. (Some quantitative limits could help resolve that issue, but that's out-of-band for this talk page.)
Meanwhile, it's clear that many admins themselves feel more put-upon than ever, more reluctant to act, more liable to be charged with wrongdoing, and many of them have resigned, too; we're not just losing good editors. DS vaugness "setting up" admins to feel they have more leeway than the community is actually granting them, and thereby entrap themselves, is not helping.
I honestly think this calls DS entirely into question in the long run. The problems with it that have cost this project about a year of my and several other productive editors' participation, and are chilling the participation of many others, while doing very little to rein in actual inveterate disruptors, are still not resolved. I applaud the putsch to reform this controversial approach to administration, but have to note that it's still controversial, for reasons that haven't changed. One possible solution is to have AE decide that an ArbCom enforcement must happen, and then remand this decision to AN/ANI for actual enforcement, so that the remedy is decided by the admin community, not by some "lone star" maverick admin with an axe to grind or simply a fondness for aggressive solutions. Or make AE another AN sub-board, subject to normal procedure there from top to bottom. But theses idea are out-of-band too. I'd like to see them raised somewhere seriously, where ever that might best be discussed.
In the short term, this wording in this section of the draft is problematic, but in more and sometimes different ways than some admins suggest. It would be convenient but a bad idea to resolve these problems in a way that only addresses enforcer-admin-focused concerns while bypassing countervailing ones.
Finally, the ability of a clearly over-involved admin to escape a finding of involvement by "letter of the law" bureaucratically gaming the system needs to be curtailed, and this is the section in which to do so. Pursuit of sanctions against an editor by one admin or tagteam thereof, in venue after venue, is a problem, no matter how much they protest that they're just doing normal admin work. A displayed anger and impatience with a particular discussion type or topic (a "how dare you argue about that trivia?!" attitude) is every bit as much of a "dog in the fight" as taking one side or the other in that dispute, and in a sense is bigger dog. A desire to censor and sanction both sides for failure to shut up about a topic you can't stand is not necessarily less involvement, but may be double the involvement, especially if the dispute is legitimate and part of the consensus-building process (versus, say, the ethnocentric hate-mongering at the root of a number of RFARB cases). This is especially true when the dispute is about internal WP issues, not article content. Abuse of AE and DS to silence editors – sometimes just for using dispute resolution not for engaging in actual content disputes – is an ongoing problem here. The "discretionary" part not seeming to have bounds, and AE being its own microcosm, as if other rules did not apply, together form a serious systemic weakness that can be exploited and long-term gamed to the direct detriment of good-faith editors by any POV-pushing admin or tagteam. They also lead to an insular AE subculture increasingly at odds with the rest of the project. Whether one believes all of this has already happened or not, the clear potential for it is enough reason to nip it in the bud. There is certainly already a common perception that it has all happened, and that's problematic by itself for ArbCom and WP.
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
There's something wrong when a system which should be used to protect what is important (mainspace) is used to "protect" what is not (AE). As a non-content, non-admin editor, I consider it much more high risk to open an AE thread than to file an arbcom request -- if I screw up the latter the worse that will probably happen is a clerk will revert it and leave me a note on my talk page. Screw an AE request and I'm likely to blocked / restricted or some other nonsense. NE Ent 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Very brief responses. If you'd like to discuss specifics to a case in more detail, you're very welcome to do so on my talk page.
Roger Davies talk 02:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I got a question of general nature, related to this sub heading. It concerns the closing statement made by T. Canens in an old case from 2011, here, which I'll quote fully:
"Discretionary sanctions address editor conduct, not admin conduct. The phrasing of the remedy itself draws a clear distinction between editors and administrators, and so admin actions are never sanctionable misconduct under discretionary sanctions (cf. judicial immunity). Therefore, while AE may overturn individual admin actions for involvement on appeal, I agree that the discretionary sanctions do not give us the power to declare an admin involved. It would indeed be very surprising for one admin to have the power to unilaterally declare another admin involved (remember that the discretionary sanctions allows for action by "any uninvolved administrator"; what a consensus of admins can do under the discretionary sanctions a single admin may do as well), and we should assume that arbcom did not mean for such an unorthodox and irregular delegation of authority unless the remedy allows for no other reasonable interpretation. I voice no opinion on the merits of the block. T. Canens (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)"
Of course this statement was made by a single individual so it may not represent actual policy or even practice. But T. Canens was and has been very active in AE enforcement, is involved in the discussion of this draft and is a member of the Arbitration Committee. Yet, I find this statement both disturbing in its implications and ... well, monumentally stupid.
It appears to say that admins are automatically exempt from discretionary sanctions. Hell. It doesn't "appear" to say so, it says so: "admin actions are never sanctionable misconduct under discretionary sanctions". And then, in some kind of "I play lawyer on Wikipedia" it invokes the ... principle of judicial immunity as if it was in any way relevant or applicable.
The rest of that paragraph is essentially irrelevant wikilawyering. But I do want this clarified. Are admins automatically exempt from being subject to discretionary sanctions by virtue of having admin status? Are admin actions automatically exempt from discretionary sanctions by virtue of having admin status? Is there a qualitative difference between "admin misconduct" and "editor misconduct"? If so, what exactly is it? Like, "admin misconduct" is abusively blocking someone or moving a move-protected page or protecting to "own version" and that can never be subject to discretionary sanctions?
In general the problem with this draft, IMO, is in what it leaves out, not in what it says. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 10:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I iterate my concerns about "broadly construed" being usable as a sledgehammer where "reasonably construed as directly related" would suffice. Collect ( talk) 12:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
For instance, if I were to impose, a 2-rr per fortnight on an editor, such a sanction could be both novel and non-novel depending on what the interpretation of the requirement is: if, as you say, a novel sanction is one that isn't mentioned in the examples, then this restriction would not be novel (it's a revert restriction); if, on the other hand, a novel sanction is one that has never been imposed before, then I think this restriction would qualify as novel, as I'm pretty sure it has never been imposed before.
Anyway, I'm not sure this provision is necessary: every sanction can be appealed and there are various levels of a-posteriori review, so weird sanctions can be quickly lifted and the record purged. Also, discretionary sanctions are based upon the idea that we trust the judgement of our administrators; why, then, should we say "we trust your judgement, then again we occasionally don't". Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Second, I'm happy if it goes, but I'd like to see it discussed a bit first, Roger Davies talk 12:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The entire concept of appeal means that the decision is reviewed by a higher authority. AN, being the pool of all administrators, is necessarily a higher authority than AE, a tiny pool of administrators working on a particular sort of activity. AE is also obviously appealable directly to ArbCom (hopefully more often via ARCA than RFARB, which is way more bureaucratic). If ArbCom wants appeals to mandatorily go through AN first before ARCA, that's up to them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 21:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
To get this discussion on track could people post their impressions of discretionary sanctions that worked well, and those that worked badly? If there were real examples to discuss, some conclusions might be possible. Railing against ArbCom with legalistic arguments is not productive. If it can be shown that DS don't work, then they won't be used; if they are shown to be useful in certain situations, we need to be able to identify them. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
In v2 I presented evidence that these alerts are a disaster waiting to happen. For whatever reason many admins have no freaking clue how intimidating the alert is to someone who has no knowledge of discretionary sanctions. That combined with the warfare mentalities that are commonplace in DS topics, the act of one perceived "side" alerting another perceived "side" is likely to cause needless friction and disruption (see the v2 link for a real-life example of this). I therefore seriously suggest something like the following, containing text that should be perhaps even sillier than what is there now.
This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for topics relating to , which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.
Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.{{
Z33}}
vzaak 04:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
How this message is perceived:
This message is to scare the shit out of you, for the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for topics relating to something which you may have edited, thereby placing yourself in a heap of trouble. The Committee's ominous decision can be read here.
Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further productive editing to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators will impose sanctions willy nilly for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which they dislike. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks, thumb screws, and will make Theon Grayjoy's torture look like a spa treatment. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please get your head checked, as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you are crazy enough to want to proceed.{{
Z33}}
Somehow this template needs to be reworked to assume good faith. How about reassuring editors that they can edit normally, that if they are acting in good faith, they won't be sanctioned, that the special conditions are designed to make editing in the area more pleasant, by making it easier to remove any disruptive editors. Be on the lookout for disruptive editors. Report them here. Don't worry, if you are contributing productively, you are not going to be the target of any enforcements. Please ask for help here or there or there if you have lingering concerns. Welcome, we love you, edit onward... Jehochman Talk 03:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
How about changing the beginning of the template text as follows
[Placeholder for BLPSE discussion, per recent motion] Roger Davies talk 02:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
At the end of the Housekeeping section, there's a light yellow bar that says This indicates the end of the draft v2 updated Discretionary Sanction remedy.
Shouldn't that be "draft v3"?
BlueMoonset (
talk) 00:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I had a look at one section. This bit could be simplified, even though it would involve some duplication. I've made some trivial edits (in most cases underlined to mark them out for your consideration. There are two substantive changes: singular to plural in the second point, and plural to singular in the last point.
EXISTING
No sanction may be imposed on an editor unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:
SUGGESTED:
No sanction may be imposed on an editor unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is "aware" if any of the following pertain:
Tony (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
A few tiddlies that may or may not be useful ... strike-out for suggested removal, underlines for suggested insertion:
For the purposes of arbitration enforcement Definitions:
I wondered about "enforcing"—under the definition, such an admin would be placing the DS notification(s), not necessarily enforcing anything; and it's a high-level word that might be better as a more neutral term.
Postscript: An 'editor is anyone who may edit and has edited ..." – please check that this is not gameable. So an "editor" escapes the definition if they can't currently edit (i.e. they're blocked or banned). I may be splitting hairs, though.
Tony (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
More suggestions—
(A) Under "Behavioural expectations":
Editors editing within the area of conflict are expected to: Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to:
Failure to meet any behavioural expectation is grounds for sanctioning.
Comment: why not remove "editorial and" from the third point? Does it mean if you don't follow the MOS, or use faulty grammar, you might be sanctioned? Perhaps if it's retained it could be clarified?
(B) "may be subject to any remedy, including desysopping, that the committee consider appropriate." -> "may be subject to any remedy the committee consider appropriate, including desysopping."
(C) "or any other measures which the imposing administrator reasonably believes are necessary to prevent disruption" – "reasonably" is what went on in the admin's head, and is thus not contestable by the committee or anyone else. If you mean "or any other reasonable measures", could the word be relocated? Otherwise removed?
(D) "No sanction may be modified without:
Thereafter, the sanctioned editor may:
Problem in "Thereafter", which presumably refers back to a sequence that hasn't been stated as such. Do you mean "If a sactioned editor has been unsuccessful in attempts to modify a sanction via 1. and 2., the sanctioned editor they may:" ...?
"Noticeboard" is lower case elsewhere on the page.
(E) "A" is standard in legal text in a few places here where "the" is used; please consider changing. For example: "Only the an editor under sanction may appeal the sanction." Withdrawn ... I misunderstood.
Tony
(talk) 14:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
(F) "Nothing in this provision prohibits an administrator from superseding an existing sanction with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the original sanction was applied." – I don't think "supersede" can be transitive. Please consider: "Nothing in this provision prohibits an administrator from superseding replacing an existing sanction with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the original sanction was applied." – or "supplanting", but "replacing" seems plainer.
(G) "Nothing in this current version of the Discretionary Sanctions ...". Could you downcase as in the page title and elsewhere in the main text?
(H) "on-going" – I think "ongoing" is pretty standard nowadays.
(I) Don't like the plural "committee", like a cricket team; but <sigh> it's no big deal: the committee consider, And it's inconsistent: the Nutshell has "the Arbitration Committee has", not "have", twice. Further down after No. 3 in "Appealing and modifying sanctions", there's a "the committee has".
Sorry to bloat: first time I've really been through the text properly. Nice work by those who've shaped it: should be a simple reform with strong community backing, frankly, and I see lots of emotion spilling from past perceived (some actual, probably) injustices. Please, let's pull together and get this reform on the road. This is no time for personal pride, for keeping alive the hurt that we've all felt as wiki editors at one time or another. Tony (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The Vision "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
"The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage."
— Tim Simonite, Technology Review [5]
Ouch. That's embarrassing. Aren't you embarrassed? I'm embarrassed -- I certainly don't go around sharing my wiki-addiction with folks in real life. If that's true we need to address it, if that's not true we need to address the perception that it is.
What's that got to do with Discretionary sanctions?
When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.
— John Muir
I've previously opined with some length about the strange duality of the committee's important / unimportant duality at The Committee, so I'll just briefly reiterate that while the number of editors by ArbCom may be relatively low, the symbolic importance of your actions is high before it affects perception of Wikipedia as a whole.
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee: "It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve."
Simplifying for brevity, administrators can be classified as authoritarian -- often acting quickly and decisively with regards to the many many wp-this and wp-that's Wikipedia is filled with, and holistic -- taking a more nuanced approach appropriate to a place where one of the five big rules is not to be overly fixated on the rules. While I personally believe strongly the holistic types are better for Wikipedia, all-in-all, I suspect both are necessary. (I'm reminded of the two Kirks in The Enemy Within; unfortunately, our article leaves out the writer Richard Matheson's insight that both parts of Kirk's personality were necessary for him to function effectively.)
A close observer of past arbcom's will note we tend to elect committees with both types of editors. Although the committee has some sort of theoretical "absolute power" -- certainly folks in the community foolishly look to arbcom to solve all problems -- this mix of authoritarian and holistic, a mind numbing bureaucracy, the fact that arbcom takes few cases, and is slow to act results in an extremely judicious in its use of power.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: Arbcom can delegate its power. It can't delegate its wisdom |
In normal space, these two tendencies -- authoritarian and holistic -- counterbalance each other. The particular rules of admining -- the so called "second mover advantage" -- mean that the worst excesses of authoritarian admins can be quickly opposed by holistic types, and pushback from holistic admins and experienced editors acts as prior restraint of overly aggressive admin actions.
Discretionary sanctions destroy that balance. Overly strict sanctions are locked in by arbcom authority, and the primary appeal venue (AE) is a harsh, authoritarian place where merely screwing up a request can get you sanctioned.
Changing the rules for swaths of the pedia is beyond the stated remit of the committee ("disputes between editors"). I understand the community has at least passively accepted DS, so I'm not making a legalistic argument; I'm saying the committee itself should seriously reconsider whether DS is appropriate given its founding mandates.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Quote: I'm saying the committee itself should seriously reconsider whether DS is appropriate given its founding mandates. (NE Ent)
It's been apparent for months the committee, or at least the subportion actively participating here, is not interested in an actual review of the DS process. The focus remains on "efficiency," "less disruption" and less work for the committee, not the important questions, which should be:
To the extent these questions have been addressed, it has been with intellectually shallow glib responses, (e.g. 'It's obvious'). The fact of the matter is the span of Wikpedia -- about five million articles (6,818,163) -- makes such self-centric observations of little value. (Of course, this means I don't know the answer any more than anyone else -- DS could be the greatest thing since sliced bread). What the committee should be doing is formulating actually meaningful questions about the process, determining what data is necessary to address them, and then soliciting support from the wikinerds (e.g. WP:VPT) to gather the data, and then seriously analyze the data to determine what direction to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
There's also the community cost of the appearance that ArbCom has run off the rails, that DS has turned AE into a horrid chimera of a "Wild West" shoot-'em'-up kill zone and a Kafka-esque nightmare of harsh legalism, and that the general inescapability of whatever weird sanctions some self-important wikicop slaps on you means that Wikipedia administration is becoming increasingly arbitrary (in the negative sense) and dictatorial, like a world overrun with clones of Napoleon. It's directly attracting the wrong kinds of people to seek admin status. Yes, DS does help to reign in certain things, like race-baiting hatefests on a few perennial hot-spot topics, but it's been applied in ways that, e.g., thwart consensus building on WP guidelines, and even censure people for using WP's dispute resolution forums. I'm still being pilloried for the latter in the log at WP:ARBATC. The very idea that failing to bring a successful case at AE is going to lead to a "boomerang" sanction against someone is insane, juvenile and stupid. It's like being sent to prison if the burglar you reported gets acquitted.
Treating AE like some kind of magical kingdom with special rules and uniquely empowered paladins is having terrible effects on the entire editing community, who have taken a long time to absorb WP's already over-complicated rules and norms, only to be told these can now be thrown out the window on a whim, in favor of wildly inconsistent, punitive actions by people who in some cases focus on doing almost nothing but telling other people what they can't do here. It's also worsening the public perception of Wikipedia, and those who spend most of their time in AE simply don't see any of it, as they're lost in the fantasy. This is not a game.
I told someone the other day that had been one of the two most active Wikipedia editors on pool and billiards articles. His response was "Are you fuckin' crazy? Why you wanna waste time with that buncha psycho control freaks?". This did not come from some techno-libertarian geek who may have come here and gotten into online community politics squabbles, but from a blue-collar pool league player who probably spends less than an hour a week online. Not a good sign. WP's editor-hatefulness is already legendary even among people who have probably never considered editing [yet, but now probably not ever]. You don't need a business or communications degree to know that "widely distrusted and scorned by potential as well as actual customers" is the absolute worst public relations situation to ever be in. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 22:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I got notice that this page is at a new stage in development. I have not been following the history of this work and do not understand the nuance of controversy around this, but upon looking lightly at it, it seems apparent to me that a lot of thought has gone into this and everything appears to be orderly and right with this. I am sorry that I am unable to give any more thoughtful comment about this but thanks to those who have worked on this. It seems useful and encouraging. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement is conducted at a designated noticeboard, currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
At that noticeboard, discussions concerning sanctions against any editors concerning any area listed as being under "Discretionary Sanctions" by the Arbitration Committee are held. That Committee has the power to amend or remove any area described as subject to sanctions through that noticeboard.
Any misbehavior by an editor working within an area discussed at the noticeboard may be dealt with by sanction after discussion, and who has been made reasonably aware that the area is so listed. To that end, any editor may notify such an editor that the area is under discretionary sanctions.
Administrators reasonably considered as either involved with the area of dispute or with the editor being discussed may not participate as administrators in determining sanctions. In addition, administrators may not impose undue or disproportionate sanctions, but shall only impose such sanctions as would be reasonably anticipated by the Arbitration Committee. If a sanction is appealed, that administrator imposing the sanction may not also act as an administrator in any such appeal.
All sanctions shall be logged on the appropriate page or pages designated by the Arbitration Committee in any decision regarding the area under discretionary sanctions. No sanction shall be altered without the consent of the administrator originally imposing the sanction. If such an administrator is no longer an administrator or is inactive, such appeals shall be made to the Arbitration Committee and not to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.
Prior sanctions made under discretionary sanctions are not affected by this revision.
Which I think is shorter, clearer, and pretty simple except for the required buzzwords. I do remove the "only the editor under sanction" bit from the appeals process because I fail to see why it is either useful or needed here. It is still unreadable, but far less unreadable than the first proposal. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The "misbehavior" language pretty much sums up the dismissive attitude of way too many admins towards non-admins, that non-adins are naughty children who are not to be taken seriously. If they were talking about admins or arbs, it would be "conduct". — Neotarf ( talk) 14:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps "acts specifically contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or the sanctions placed by the arbitration Committee" would make "misbehavior" a far less utile word here? Collect ( talk) 22:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there any appetite among AE admins to try to compile a short document detailing the best practices currently followed at AE? I think that such a page, explaining to unfamiliar users how things actually work at arbitration enforcement, might be useful both for users (being reported or reporting others) and for previously uninvolved admins who wanted to give AE a shot. Another thing I think might be useful would be compiling some sort of sentencing guidelines; these would have to be merely advisory in nature (so as not to excessively limit admin discretion), but, in my opinion, would be useful both to users and to enforcing admins... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Date | Archive/Case | Issue | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
2012-09 | [link to archive#Case name] | Broke 1RR (one-off) | Warned. |
2012-10 | [link to archive#Case name] | Edit-warring (3RR) | 24-hour block |
2013-01 | [link to archive#Case name] | Personal attacks | Topic-banned |