Wikipedia:Contentious topics/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation

2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review

Status as of 11:15 (UTC), Saturday, 18 May 2024 ()

• The final decision has been posted and announced.
• The initial implementation period has concluded and the updated procedure has come into effect.
• Any editors interested in the ongoing implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page.
• To be notified about updates, subscribe to the update list.

Timeline

The revision process will be conducted in four phases: Phase I community consultation (March – April 2021) (closed) Closing statement posted (May 2021) (closed) Discretionary sanctions topic amendments (February 2022) (closed) Phase II community consultation (September – October 2022) (closed) Proposed decision (November – December 2022) Public review (November 13 – 18, 2022) Final decision (December 2022) Implementation: The drafting arbitrators will implement the Committee's decision in conjunction with the Committee's clerks and interested volunteers designated by the Committee. The revision process was managed by drafting arbitrators designated by the Arbitration Committee (CaptainEek, L235, Wugapodes).

The Arbitration Committee wishes to make the discretionary sanctions procedure and system work more effectively. Taking your feedback from the Phase I consultation, we have created a draft version of new sanctions. Below we have broken down each proposed change into a subsection with a rationale. Please use this page in conjunction with the draft page. Comments and feedback welcome!

A few notes:

• This proposal list is not the final version. Please consider this to be a workshop and provide alternative proposals in comments. Your feedback will be taken into account for the final version.
• The community will get at least one more opportunity to review the final version, and will be able to express support or opposition for it.
• Draft language is linked, but it is not the final version, and should be considered part by part, not as a whole.
• This is not a !vote: support or opposition without a reasoned opinion will be disregarded.

Name

Proposal summary

Discretionary sanctions (DS) will be renamed "Contentious Topics" (abbreviated as CT), which refers to DS topics, and "special enforcement actions", referring to the levying of restrictions.

Proposed language

No specific proposed language, but this terminology can be found throughout the proposed procedure page

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics (abbreviated as CT). These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

References

Rationale

"Discretionary sanctions" was a bad name:

• It's implicitly intimidating
• It doesn't explain anything to anyone who doesn't already know what it means
• All admin actions come as an exercise of administrative discretion; "discretionary" doesn't convey any information. (Is it absolute discretion? That sounds scary too!)

Plus, the term "discretionary sanctions" referred to several different things, which were confusing to keep straight especially for newer editors:

• The overall system of discretionary sanctions (as in "discretionary sanctions are broken")
• The actual individual restrictions and page restrictions that were levied (as in "I issued a discretionary sanction", "I was sanctioned", "this is a sanctioned page")
• Authorization to use impose discretionary sanctions in a topic (as in "I hope we get discretionary sanctions out of this case", "this topic has "DS")

We propose shifting to "contentious topics" because it should be understandable by editors of any experience level who come into a CT area. Not all RL contentious topics are Wikipedia Contentious Topics and some Wikipedia Contentious Topics are not real life ones but this was true of any phrase that we considered.

We call the actual restrictions that are issued pursuant to the contentious topics procedure "special enforcement actions". This makes clear that an admin working in these topics may make actions that are different than normal, both in the tools available to them and in the way they may be reviewed and changed. Again the goal was clarity.

Name (feedback)

• I will note that the Committee was torn on what new name to choose, and also had support for "Constrained topics" and "Arbitrated topics". A new name is coming, but we are still open to suggestions on what to go with. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓} 04:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
• Like. Good, let's shake things up, make em more accessible. Also, CTs do have better guns, but they are more expensive, so it's a trade off (though, I'm biased, I love the Krieg most). El_C 17:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Like the two other suggestions use more difficult English. Femke (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  My concern with the contentious topics name is that it is sufficiently generic that it becomes a term of art problem, akin to notability. (Did I link notability or notability?) It will be more difficult to explain to any (new) users in spaces like AN or ANI, never mind external to Wikipedia, that there is a difference between a contentious topic (say, the Syrian civil war) and a contentious topic (say, everything within the scope of post-1992 American politics). You'll notice that, in fact, the Syrian civil war has an associated community-authorized GS regime today; if the community should follow suit with renaming "general sanctions" to something more meaningful, that the former of those two examples also becomes even more difficult to discuss.

  I personally suggested arbitrated topics because that makes our previous involvement clear and our oversight over the current topic sufficiently implied if not obvious. While it suffers from the reverse issue (jargon), I'd rather users get a word pair that has few or no other meanings and be educated as to what those two words mean in juxtaposition than have to tell people "no, there's two meanings, and one of them is special here". Izno (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think a consistent capitalisation may help a bit here (so Contentious Topic rather than contentious topic), but yeah, that's a downside. Femke (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Personally I am open to a number of suggestions for the name - as I really want it to change. For me arbitrated topics requires nearly the same amount of wiki knowledge as DS. I'm not sure its virtue (makes clear who is responsible) outweighs the costs of change. So it would not be a name I would be planning to support. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  The more I think about it, the more I like Arbitrated Topics. The main problem with Discretionary Sanctions for me is that a) discretionary is a college-level word, whereas contentious/arbitrated are difficult words that a majority of non-college educated people may know b) the word sanctions makes people scared, which may induce a defensive attitude. I think Arbitrated Topics may imply more involvement of admins than reality, but it does imply some different rule set, which Contentious Topics may not. That said, I'm still very happy with the CT naming. Femke (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with this. Not one is ever going to naturally understand the system of blocks, bans, arbitration and discretionary sanctions; it is always going to be something that new users are going to have to learn about. Changing the name to "contentious topics" is just going to make people think they naturally understand it when I'm reality they are wrong. That makes AE worse, not better. GoldenRing (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think I like the "constrained topics" or "arbitrated topics" wording better. Calling it "contentious topics" may lead to confusion; I could see people thinking this can be applied to any topic that becomes contentious, rather than those where (DS, or whatever it turns out to be called now) has specifically been authorized. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Dislike : "special enforcement actions" feels vague and inconcise. (also that name kinda reminds me of something…) Madeline (part of me) 18:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  The naming similarity was not lost on us when we discussed naming earlier this year. I don't think it's relevant.

  We are taking naming suggestions. Please provide one! :) Izno (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  For the affected topic areas, "arbitrated topics" would fit well. For the enforcement part, I'd prefer a term which is somehow connected to the term chosen for the topics. Maybe just "Contentious topics enforcement"/"Arbitrated topics enforcement"? Madeline (part of me) 19:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• I would personally keep DS for historical continuity reasons --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• I would support Arbitrated Topics, as a preferred term, especially pro Izno's reasoning. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• "Arbitrated topics" makes most sense. Not sure I like "special enforcement action", given the similarity with Putin's name for his war. How about "arbitration enforcement action"? firefly ( t · c ) 20:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• DS has worked and make sense, the sanctions are authorized by Arb, and at the discretion of admin. CT makes less sense and is vague. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• If I understand correctly, this is more than a rename, but a change in vocabulary: the arbitration committee would identify contentious topics, and enact arbitration rulings that authorize special enforcement actions for contentious topics. Is this correct? If this is the case, I do not like "arbitrated topics". It doesn't matter to editors how the topic came to be identified as requiring special enforcement rules, whether it was from a community consensus or from the arbitration committee. I like that the two paths for identifying contentious topics can be unified under one term and procedural framework. isaacl (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  To answer your question, basically yes. If a topic is designated by Arbcom as a contentious topic, there would be a standard set of special enforcement actions authorized (i.e. page protections, CR, etc) and potentially other actions as authorized by a ruling. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Reading the rest of the sections on this page made this clear. I think it would be helpful to explicitly state this up front in this section, as that makes the rationale for the rename more evident. isaacl (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps the new term can be one with the same connotations but that isn't in common everyday use, such as Red-Flag Topic, or Flashpoint Topic. isaacl (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• +1 A name change is definitely in order. What the new name should be is less clear to me, but contentious topics makes it very clear that the topics it covers are contentious and therefore are different to other areas. "Constrained topics" is also a good name to me, but "Arbitrated topics" seems a little unclear to me if I was to put myself in the shoes of a newbie. There is a reason why news organisations compare ArbCom to "Wikipedia's Supreme Court" as more (US) editors are aware of what a supreme court is than what an arbitration committee is. The same follows for "Wikipedia" vs "Wikimedia". Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• It's probably not what our esteemed arbitrators want to hear BUT...you know something is wrong with the process when you can't come up with a name that isn't frightening. Eliminate DS and let our admins do their job. Why can't an admin add - subject to 1RR at the top of the article TP, and the same for the article edit view? Simple. Atsme 💬 📧 23:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Right now general sanctions that apply to all editors are authorized by the community or through the authority delegated to the arbitration committee by the community. If the community wants to allow individual admins to enact a general sanction on any article, such as a 1-revert rule, it can hold an RfC to approve this. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Your proposal of "eliminating DS", if implemented in the described way, extends DS to all articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Discretionary Sanctions" isn't a good name, because "discretionary" sounds like an admin's power to use IAR rather than one of the most formalised and rule-bound procedures on the site. There is a cost to changing names and takeup is difficult: 10 years from now, half of us will still be abbreviating it DS, and WP:DS already redirects somewhere else (could it be much more inside baseball?). Additionally, let's not mistake this for a major change that solves any problem at its root. All this being said, I have no objection to the new name "contentious topics". "Arbitrated Topics" would perhaps be simpler and clearer: it's the Arbitration Committee and they authorise actions on Arbitrated Topics.
  "Special enforcement actions", on the other hand, sounds like a military term. I see from an above comment that I'm not the first to compare it to the rhetoric around war crimes. "Enforcement actions" is more concise and less austere. "Arbitration Sanctions'" would fit with "Arbitrated Topics" and "Arbitration Committee". — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• What about "Topics of Concern"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Nutshell

Proposal summary

Change the nutshell box to be more clear and provide more relevant info

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#top

Rationale

More clear than previous version.

Nutshell (feedback)

Yep, it's more clear. The current nutshell includes the passage: This updated discretionary sanctions procedure was authorised by motion on 3 May 2014 and superseded and replaced all prior discretionary sanction provisions with effect from that date. Believe it or not, 2014 was 8 years ago, so the current DS have been here more than a third of Wikipedia's lifetime. Hopefully us old people have learned by now what this newfangled DS thing is all about and the nutshell should instead be written for newcomers. — Bilorv (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

Proposal summary

Add a lead section that includes:

• Basic definition of contentious topics
• Expectations for editors

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#top

Rationale

Previously, the discretionary sanctions procedure did not contain a usable definition of the system and begun with legalistic definitions and a complicated "Authorisation" section. This reformat puts the most important information for the average editor up top: "what is the contentious topics system, and should I do anything different because of it?" The guidance for editors here will hopefully be helpful and probably answer a fair share of newbie questions about CT.

Lead section (feedback)

• I like this idea. An editor who receives an alert is probably most concerned with "What does this mean for me?", so placing that front and center very much makes sense. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Usually our processes are relatively 'third person', but I wonder if it would be valuable to make the boxed content be a very direct second person: Within contentious topics, editors you should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia and Editors You are advised to err on the side of caution if they you are unsure whether. --Izno (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds like a good idea. We use it sporadically in the normal block templates, and perhaps should use in more notices (of whatever variety) where read by a specific person and where that editor is less likely to be incalated into wikispeak. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yep, second person is less dry and clearer. It is easier for me and you to read. — Bilorv (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  The suggested wording of using second person IMO is clearer. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

AWARENESS

Proposal summary

The current WP:AWARENESS criteria are replaced with an appealable presumption of awareness following an initial alert.

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Awareness_of_contentious_topics

Rationale

We hope that the change will reduce wikilawywering while hopefully remaining fair to people who are genuinely not aware. The intent behind the AWARENESS rule was to prevent people who didn't reasonably have a chance to understand that they broke a rule; unfortunately, AWARENESS has now turned into an entire body of wikilaw. That lead to some absurd situations and perhaps the clearest consensus of the initial consultation, namely that AWARENESS is broken. We decided that the best way to deal with it was to get rid of the wikilaw and go with a simpler standard. While there is a general presumption of awareness, we are hoping that enforcing administrators will use common sense in deciding whether or not there is awareness in practice. This combined with slightly easier appeal standards should hopefully mean that to the extent that things need to get sorted out they will through AE rather than laborious ArbCom writing. If you were a big fan of the current standards, they live on in a footnote.

Awareness (feedback)

• Yes please and thank you. This would make life so much easier. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  The requirement that one must be uninvolved to leave an alert was just brought to my attention. I really don't like that piece; it's needless bureaucracy. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It's for the escalated alert, though, not the introductory one. El_C 18:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

There's two different levels of alerts? "Awareness of contentious topics" does not make this clear to me as written. — Bilorv (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's in the section directly below: #Alerts. El_C 00:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is certainly needed, but going down the path of appealable presumptions of awareness, is there a formal or semi-formal level - the clear consensus for a full AE appeal, a rough consensus, or anything above a "yeah, could see how you might have forgotten in these circumstances" standard? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Like — finally! El_C 17:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Mostly great. Agree that the requirement one must be uninvolved to alert would be difficult to work with. I'd estimate that currently most alerts are given by people who are involved, and that people will find it too high a barrier to go to a noticeboard. With the new wording (contentious topics), the chilling effect of giving out notices is mitigated, so I don't think this is necessary. Femke (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Femke I agree. Involved editors are the most likely people to notice a need. Most uninvolved editors won’t see articles they aren’t involved with surely? Doug Weller talk 18:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• The clerks have never been involved at AE before. This would be a large addition to our remit. Like others above, I think the uninvolved barrier to be too high for this --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Have the drafters considered the volume of notice requests (from involved users) that we expect to need, and is the clerk's noticeboard able to handle that volume while still conducting its normal business? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers: Well, nothing actually happens at the clerks noticeboard. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Alerts from involved editors leads to heightened contention. However to only allow them from uninvolved editors does seem a high bar, is there no middle ground? So editors currently engaged in any editorial dispute with the editor being alerted would not be allowed to give alerts, but those who are generally involved but not currently involved can. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. The huge body of Byzantine "awareness law" needs to go. Not sure I like the "uninvolved only" part but I absolutely understand what the idea behind it is. Will have a think about some alternatives we could look at. firefly ( t · c ) 20:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• I understand the idea, but I don't like dragging Arb clerks into AE against their will. The difference being "involved" and "not involved" is itself going to be in the eye of the beholder, at least with average editors who aren't admin and used to using that definition in the wiki sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• This proposes to change wikilawyering to a different form of wikilawyering (specifically, over whether the individual who gave the notification is "involved"). In practice, most notices are given by someone who is at least arguably involved, so this could if anything even be worse than the time-based stuff (under the current system, if you got a notice last month, not much wikilawyering is practically possible over that). I appreciate the thought toward changing the current model, but this will not make it better, and could even make it worse. Make it simple—anyone can make you aware (including yourself, if you for example give alerts to others or file an AE request regarding the area), and once aware, always aware. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Does Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware apply for the introductory alert? I'm uneasy about the phrase Only the officially designated template should be used without further qualification. Editors should be free to let someone know in conversation that topic X is a designated contentious topic. Personally, I would prefer that once an editor is made aware of the concept of contentious topics, they are responsible for determining if they are editing a contentious topic, and so no further alerts for specific topics are required. isaacl (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Well, anyone is free to mention anything (generally), but in terms of establishing AWARE'ness, the formal template has all the necessary links, etc., which an informal explanation may fall short of. Personally, I'm interested to see how a two-tier alert system will fair. It's an interesting concept, which I think is worth exploring. Of course, there'll be much to iron out, a process for which much of the success of this new system would depend on. Which I suppose is what we're doing (or starting to do) now. El_C 22:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes; I feel, though, that the draft text isn't sufficiently clear in establishing that "alert" is being used to mean a formal alert that serves as an official signpost for awareness. Thus I think more qualification is required. With the stated desire to have a more flexible awareness system, I'm also not clear if formal alerts are the only way to establish awareness. (The draft text doesn't talk about two tiers of notification, so I'm not sure how this fits into the determination of awareness.) isaacl (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Anyone who has participated in arbitration proceedings is currently considered to be aware of associated authorizations for discretionary sanctions. Will this continue to be a factor in determining awareness? isaacl (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Well, I can see the point in using uninvolved editors to avoid the hostility that comes with an involved editor essentially breathing down your neck with the message "I've been watching your edits and just wanted to tell you that you can be shot on sight and your family detained for the least violation of The Rules". However, alerts should be bot-delivered to avoid any animosity towards individual volunteers and huge waste of uninvolved volunteer labor, and completely rewritten to avoid sounding and looking like a clear and direct threat. — Bilorv (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• I really like the changes, for the most part. Two things: I dislike that ArbCom still specifies what template must be used to inform someone of DS/CT. If I explain AP2 to John Doe, accurately and fully but in my own words, is John Doe aware or not? Or am I not allowed to even offer the explanation unless I use the template first? (Do I need to be AWARE that I am not allowed to explain CT in my own words?) I would rather ArbCom strongly suggest that the designated template be used, and leave it at that. And I also dislike the uninvolved requirement. Definitely a good idea in principle, but if I found out User:ArbComClerk alerted me after being asked to by User:PersonIAmHavingADisputeWith, I would feel like The Cabal is out to get me. I would rather be alerted by a single rogue admin/editor than by a cabal of admins/editors. HouseBlaster^talk 03:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• It's not clear to me how exactly the new language is less prone to wikilawyering and complications than the old one. Instead, the awareness criteria should be abolished altogether. Sanctions exist to help the project work better, and if they are needed they should be imposed whether or not a problematic editor was "aware" that they can be imposed. Instead, editors should generally be made more aware that DS exists (perhaps with an edit notice in the vein of: "If you do stupid shit, you may be blocked without warning" - which is already true under normal admin authority.) Sandstein 07:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Sandstein that this is not an improvement and with others that involving the ARB clerks here is unnecessary. If it were up to me, I'd abolish awareness and replace it with a "benefit of clergy" type system - the first time someone is reported or an admin thinks a sanction is warranted, they can claim they weren't aware and we AGF and believe them. Now they are aware and next time there will be consequences. Name go in book, and so forth. This is essentially the current awareness requirements but without the option of an alert template. This way, someone who is making good edits in good faith need never be aware that DS / CT exist. GoldenRing (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't understand. "Clergy," what? One would still be alerting someone about the existence of a sanctions regime. Also, an alert standard which WP:GS will continue to use? Having a template for alerts simply standardizes them with agreed-upon links and summaries, which as I mention above, informal notifications might fall short of.

  Just because DS alerts were designed in a really stupid way (like the 12 month reminder absurdity) doesn't really take away from their basic function. Sandstein and GoldenRing's confusing proposal/s feels like a play on semantics. An alert by any other name... El_C 10:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Benefit of clergy should have been linked above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  @El C: - perhaps I was not very clear. Sorry, shouldn't edit before coffee or try to make nuanced thoughts on mobile. What I mean is, do away with alerts altogether. If someone is reported for a DS violation, the first time they get to claim they were unaware. After that, they can either clean up their act or get reported again and the second time around they can't claim they were unaware. It does away with the mass leaving of templates on user pages, which has often been a point of friction where people feel it has been done in a pointy or offensive way or just plain don't understand that they are a normal part of editing certain topics. GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Alerts

Proposal summary

New template language, including standardized section headers. Only an WP:UNINVOLVED editor or administrator may place an alert.

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Awareness_of_contentious_topics

Proposed new templates

• Introduction to Contentious Topics
• Contentious Topics alert

Rationale

There is a tension between scaring off editors and getting them pay attention to a template. With the revised name hopefully the concept will be less scary. To further help, we are using a two-template solution. The template they get when they first start editing a CT, and get their first alert, is designed to be an introduction which truly explains CT. Further, it hopefully helps by having pre-designated section headings rather than whatever name an particular editor decides. Beyond that there is some recognition that the alert is always going to feel somewhat like a rebuke, hence the change to only allow subsequent alerts to be placed by an UNINVOLVED editor and by providing them a place that they may ask questions by 3rd parties instead of just the person who placed the template. Finally we note the option in the introduction template for them to mark themselves aware.

Alerts (feedback)

• Like. This is a good idea. El_C 17:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• I'm certainly open to getting rid of the UNINVOLVED provision that @Vanamonde93, Femke, Guerillero, Doug Weller, and Firefangledfeathers: are discussing above. I'm going to reply down here because it actually gets at the UNINVOLVED piece, rather than mixing it with a broader discussion of what it means to be AWARE. I take pretty seriously the idea that an alert is always going to feel a little hostile. Having it from someone you might be in the middle of a dispute with is going to inflame tensions in a way that having an UNINVOLVED party would not. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've certainly given notices where I would have preferred an uninvolved editor do it instead. In addition to the middle-ground suggested by @ActivelyDisinterested above (which may still be too strict), we could make a the clerk's noticeboard optional? Femke (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I fear making it optional would mean that it would stop the issue it was meant to solve. Could we have a list of third party editors willing to post alerts? Editors could join and note what areas they are uninvolved in. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would also back @ActivelyDisinterested's proposal. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think AD's middle-ground proposal would work well on heavily-visited articles, but even with relatively important articles (VIT5), discussions are often dialogues, with no third-party editor in sight. Femke (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Don't think this will do much good. The fundamental problem of the alert system, in my opinion, is that someone has to drop an alert on you manually (since automatic alerting is explicitly verboten), and the most likely time for someone to go out of their way to drop an alert is when you're misbehaving. As a side effect of that, because someone has to go out of their way to place the template, it's inherently a rebuke, regardless of how nicely the template is worded. Shifting the alerting to uninvolved editors doesn't significantly improve the situation, since I expect it to be rare that the uninvolved editor declines an involved editor's request to alert someone. I do like the standard heading and wording changes, but the alerting system is just broken. And as for making the arbclerk noticeboard a place to ask someone neutral to alert someone...not much of a fan of that. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  My thinking was that the list of third party editors would be those willing to do more than just add the alert, something more human is what is needing in fraught situations. It would also relieve the need for the noticeboard requests. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• The current text at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Awareness of contentious topics doesn't refer to an introductory message that can be placed by an involved editor. Can the text be updated? isaacl (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• So we're going from one to two awareness templates? DS has enough bureaucracy around awareness and talk page templating, and more is not needed. — Bilorv (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the intent is to have a gentler (introductory) alert for newcomers, precisely so it doesn't come across as intimidating bureaucracy. El_C 01:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• As noted above, the requrement of awareness should be abolished altogether as an unneeded complication. Sandstein 07:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Per above, just abolish alerts. GoldenRing (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• I'm also open to abolishing alerts, or making them bot-delivered. Femke (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Abolish the alerts, the concept of 'contentious topics' as distinct from other topics, and the entire 'discretionary sanctions' system. The whole thing just looks like some sort of Enabling Act that never got repealed.  Tewdar  09:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  So, under this, uh... total abolition, will WP:ARBPIA, for example, no longer feature the WP:500-30 restriction? I mean, seeing as it will no longer exist under such a proposal, I presume it'll be undone. But why? Because it looks a certain way? And what about the WP:GS sanctions regime? Abolish them all, as well?

  Imagine a traffic light system that is really clunky — red light, green light, and five yellows. It doesn't work that great, but it still prevents most serious traffic accidents. Now, imagine abolishing all of the traffic lights as a solution.

  It isn't a fix and it isn't a serious proposition. And it comes across as reflexive and simplistic Dunning–Kruger. I'm open to alternatives, but nothing isn't an alternative. Also, Godwin already? Wow. El_C 10:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  If admins need superpowers to deal with problematic behaviour, allow them discretion to do so without an extra layer of bureaucracy.Dunning–Kruger effect and Godwin's law, wow, that's me told. As for your traffic light metaphor, here's a different perspective.  Tewdar  12:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  While we're on the subject, there's about a gazillion archaeogenetics articles here that would probably benefit from WP:500-30 protection, that don't have it. Can admins currently impose this rule on non-DS topics? I don't know, but if they can't, they should be able to. Apparently this is already possible? So the argument above about this rule doesn't seem to make any sense.  Tewdar  13:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Appeals

Proposal summary

• Lower the level of consensus required for a successful appeal from "clear and substantial consensus" to "clear consensus"
• Provide clear standards of review on appeal

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Appeals_and_amendments

Rationale

Right now the only appeals that are accepted are ones where they are getting the equivalent of a ROPE/SO overturning or if there was some sort of serious procedural mistake in imposing the sanction. For even that to happen, there has to be one of the highest levels of consensus anywhere onwiki: namely, a "clear and substantial consensus". And if an admin reverses a restriction without meeting that standard they are eligible for desysopping on that single incident, so there's a strong incentive to not even come close to that very high bar. By maintaining the "clear consensus" language we hope that administrators won't be tempted to overturn an appeal without actual consensus behind them but will overturn when there's consensus even if it's not unanimous.

We hope to bring CT appeals in line with the kinds of standards that would normally cause an appeal to be successful at AN or ANI for normal admin actions. This change reduces the first-mover advantage a little bit by explicitly adopting a standard for AE/AN appeal that is pretty similar to a block appeal: an appeal should be granted if "the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption." But it doesn't go too far, because a clear consensus is still needed to remove the restriction.

We also codify the standard of review for ARCA appeals, providing fair warning to editors that it may be harder to appeal at ARCA than at AE/AN, which has been true but is not self-evident for appellants. Previously, the language implied that sanctioned editors were OK to just go to ARCA if desired, without any warning that that may not be advisable in certain circumstances. The new language still includes a lot of leeway for arbs to reverse bad actions.

Appeals (feedback)

• Given the underlying nature of AE, this seems like a good change and wording. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Per the discussion below, I oppose such - I believe AN should remain an appellate board that editors can continue to use. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Like. I'm usually on the opposite side from Nosebagbear when it comes to AE, but for once, I agree. El_C 17:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• This is fine, but I would rather appeals only go to AE --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

+1 — agreed. El_C 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Agree with the above that appeals should go to AE only. firefly ( t · c ) 20:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• I would echo Guerillero's comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• I don't want to get into specific examples, but I've seen a few successful appeals of AE sanctions (these were not immediate; i.e., not on the merits; but appeals supposedly showing that the sanction wasn't needed) at AN that should not have been granted, and achieved consensus through a mixture of insufficient scrutiny and wikifriends showing up. Where the behavior had genuinely improved, I'm quite certain admins at AE would have agreed to lift the sanction; I see no downside, and considerable upside, for limiting appeals to AE. It also feels more tidy; most sanctions issued by authority of multiple editors can only be appealed to the same body. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• I don't see the difference between "clear" and "clear and substantial". More wikilawyering fodder. If you want to tinker with this, set quantitative criteria. Sandstein 07:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  I also agree that there should be only one appeals venue. Sandstein 07:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Similar to Sandstein, I'm not really sure what this change in wording means. I don't think it means what the motivation says it means; I always took the "substantial" wording to mean that there had to be significant discussion and support to overturn; a consensus of two editors (or admins at AE) is clear but not substantial and that shouldn't be enough. Also opposed to restricting appeals to AE. The difference between the appeal venues has always been that at AE a consensus of admins is required to overturn while at AN a consensus of editors is required. Giving editors this choice means it is harder to argue in the future that a sanction only exists because all admins are bastards, out to get me, etc. I do think editors should have to choose one or the other though; an appeal that is denied at AE should not then be appealable to AN.
• More generally, I don't like making appeals easier. The original motivation for DS was to make it easier for admins to cut out disruption, and the committee committed to supporting enforcing admins except in egregious cases. I think making appeals easier is only going to reduce the pool of admins willing to work AE, and the lack of them has always been a frequent complaint. GoldenRing (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Single-admin enforcement actions

See also #Sanction duration (feedback)

Proposal summary

Individual administrators now have access to a standard set of page and individual restrictions to enact, plus any that are designated for a particular topic area.

Proposed language

See parts of:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Individual_restrictions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Page_restrictions

See also

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Procedural summary

Rationale

There was a consensus in the community consultation that Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (AE) is working well, but there were some concerns about complexity and the power of individual administrators. Therefore, we have made a conscious decision to give the AE noticeboard more discretion while standardizing the powers of individual administrators. The "standard set", which contains all the restrictions that are regularly used, should prevent single admins from using "bespoke" restrictions (but if they're really needed, they can be done at AE). The most commonly used restriction not included in the standard set are RfC/RM moratoriums, with the thinking being that there needs to be some form of consensus (in this case at AE) to interfere with our consensus decision making structures. Individual topic areas can also have additional standard restrictions (that single admins can use), an example of which is the source restrictions for Holocaust in Poland.

Single-admin enforcement actions (feedback)

• This seems like a good idea. I assume this means individual admins have locus standi to bring disputes to AE requesting bespoke restrictions on a page, for instance. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  +1. Having a clear list of what an individual admin can do is IMO going to help reduce the barrier to entry for admins using CT / DS. It also helps make clear what needs to come to the AE noticeboard and what can be dealt with by an uninvolved admin. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• This seems good, I would assume that any editor in good-faith could bring a request for a more specific AE bespoke restriction (or a standard one, if they either couldn't (userright) or weren't confident of doing so themselves). Perhaps a slight tweak of the language that AE can set any time they want, but can also set a timescale (including the normal 1-year) where it becomes amendable by any individual admin. (I think this would fall under the reasonable intent, just could be clearer) That would be comparable to a not-rare AN decision that one of its decisions can be handled by any admin without needing any change to come back to the board. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear can you give a go as to how you would slightly tweak for this edge case? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set above and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project and may do so for any length of time including indefinitely. AE may also specify a minimum length of time for a restriction after which they may be amended by any uninvolved admin as below. ?? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would rather that things that had a consensus to impose had a consensus to remove. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, "bespoke" means custom. I learn a new word. El_C 18:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• I would make any BRD/consensus is required restriction have to go through AE. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  What? Where do you get your clothes made? Next you'll say you don't have a valet, either! GoldenRing (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Am I right in that an admin can unilaterally impose a restriction of no more than one year, but a consensus can impose longer sanctions? The problem with this is that often, there aren't enough admins participating to form a rough consensus. This comes and goes in waves, but it is very common to have a few weeks stretch with almost no admin working the board, then a few weeks with several. I understand the logic, and not arguing against it, I'm just saying there may be unforeseen consequences because of a (common) lack of participation at AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Not to be repetitive, but I am also arguing against the logic of it. Which to say: I support lowering the appeal threshold, but feel like this will tie our hands for naught.

  But indeed, when I was more active at AE, I often experienced the same thing: case after case, week after week, where I was pretty much the sole admin. El_C 23:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• It's up to the Committee how much authority they want to delegate to individual admins, and there are good arguments for why it should not be too much. But as noted above, in the event that there is limited admin participation at AE, the one-year limit might prove problematic. Perhaps a facilitated appeals procedure might be an alternative (on appeal after a year, individual sanctions expire unless there is consensus to maintain them). Sandstein 07:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Question Is there concern that admins are imposing esoteric sanctions off their own bat? I haven't been around for a couple of years, but in my time working AE I would have thought the list of sanctions authorised for individual admins to use would have covered about 99.9% of them, at least. So listing the sanctions that individual admins can issue seems to be a solution looking for a problem. In the very rare case that some other sanction is issued, it would almost certainly be an attempt for an admin to impose something less than one of these standard sanctions; to that extent, this seems likely to encourage them to impose a harsher, standard sanction than trying to roll something custom to suit a particular situation. Of course they can always propose something at AE, but as others have noted, admin traffic there is unpredictable. Lack of admins willing to participate has long been a complaint of those who do work there, and several fairly high-profile admins have become burned out at least in part because of the pressure of working that board. By the same token (and per others above), limiting individual admin actions to a year doesn't seem a good move. GoldenRing (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement special enforcement actions

Proposal summary

Some powers are now restricted to use by a rough consensus of administrators at AE:

• Taking actions outside the "standard set" of restrictions
• Imposing individual restrictions for longer than one year
• Imposing page restrictions that can't be reversed by any administrator for longer than one year (unless renewed)

Proposed language

See parts of:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Individual_restrictions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Page_restrictions

See also

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Procedural summary

Rationale

There was a consensus in the community consultation that Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (AE) is working well, but there were some concerns about complexity and the power of individual administrators. Therefore, we have made a conscious decision to give AE more discretion while standardizing the powers of individual administrators. To compensate for this increased workload and align the standards with current standards for actioning AE reports, AE only needs a rough consensus of uninvolved administrators (a substantially lower standard than the clear consensus needed for appeals; see below). We are also hoping that AE can be a way admins interested in helping out in contentious topics can "learn the ropes" before acting as an individual administrator.

Arbitration Enforcement special enforcement actions (feedback)

• I'm not sure why indef site-wide blocks can't be set by a rough consensus of administrators at AE. I like literally everything else besides that. It's just weird to me that we already have the sort of rough AE consensus that (to use the most recent examples) editors like SaintAviator or Mark612 should be indef blocked, but these blocks have to happen as individual admin actions. It would simplify the process a lot more if these indef blocks just happened as Arbitration Enforcement individual restrictions by default. That wouldn't stop an admin from specifying an indef block as being an individual admin action for less controversial cases, but it would let a group of admins be able to make the block appealable via § Appeals and amendments rather than Wikipedia:Appealing a block and {{Unblock}} (where an appeal is extremely unlikely to be granted anyways if the editor contributes to contentious topics). We're not talking about granting AE admins the ability to indef siteban; just giving them the ability to impose an indef site-wide block where the path back to good standing is made much clearer.
  The alternative, in my opinion, is going to just be blocks like the one for Mili977 where the first year is going to be an Arbitration Enforcement individual restriction while the rest of the block is an individual admin action made outside of these procedures. That makes the whole process a lot more confusing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  +1. Being able to impose indef AE blocks seems a good idea. Perhaps, if this is too controversial, to do this a clear consensus could be instead needed than the rough consensus? In theory if this is not desirable this could be done like page protection (in that it's AE for a year and then not after that) as suggested by MJL above. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Just let us do indef blocks at AE rather than the 1 year/indef hack that we currently have --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Per above, they seem to be saying 1 admin can do up to 1 year, a consensus can do indef. The problem, of course, is a lack of participation. If you are the only admin working a case for over 72 hours, are you a consensus of 1? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown per the immediately below, I think it's "consensus can do indef page related functions and consensus can do indef editor sanctions except for blocks" Nosebagbear (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, if consensus is supposed to be required for more consequential sanctions, these should include indef blocks. Also, it should be made clear that sanctions enacted by AE consensus may only be altered or undone by AE consensus. Sandstein 07:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• I'm more relaxed about the 1 year limit on AE blocks. In practice what has happened is that admins have made indef blocks with the first year as an AE action. Any other admin seeing that generally has a pretty high bar to unblock and will frequently bring it to AN rather than doing it unilaterally. IMO this works pretty well and in practice allowing AE to issue indef blocks as AE actions wouldn't change much. GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Restriction duration

Proposal summary

Single administrators may impose individual restrictions for up to one year and page restrictions that lose "AE action" status (protection from modification by other admins) after one year unless renewed.

A rough consensus at AE may impose any restrictions indefinitely, except for blocks which continue to have a 1 year limit.

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Individual_restrictions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Page_restrictions

See also

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Procedural summary

Rationale

There was a consensus in the community consultation that Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (AE) is working well, but there were some concerns about complexity and the power of individual administrators. Therefore we have made a conscious decision to give AE more discretion while standardizing the powers of individual administrators by limiting them to 1 year for special enforcement actions. Old page restrictions should be updated and reviewed by other admins without having to go through the hassle of a full AE thread.

Sanction duration (feedback)

• Oh no, timed TBANS, this is gonna suck. I guess we'll get problem actors do the annual thing (unless AE gauntlet). El_C 17:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with El C. I guess the upside is that most everything will go though AE, because a 1 year topic ban isn't worthwhile. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Not too sure about individual admins not having the ability to place indef TBANS. However, I understand the rationale for it and coupled with the rough consensus needed at AE this makes the impact of this less of an issue. This is something I'd like to see reviewed in a years time if implemented, as this may add lots of extra AE reports due to admins taking something to AE so that there is the possibility of an indef TBAN. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Don't like the limitation. This forces a consensus when you often can't get enough participation to form one, forcing a 1 year when an indef is called for. I've made this point elsewhere, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

With few exceptions, I've stopped handing out timed TBANS years ago, so I estimate that, for the most part, I won't bring these to AE. I'll just TBAN for a year, which will largely delay the problems as many sanctioned users will simply wait out the ban or otherwise return to the topic area disruptively once it expires. And then, I guess, TBAN for another year.

The notion that timed TBANS have proven largely ineffective has been a growing (and I'd say, now dominant) trend among admins at AE for years now. It's curious to witness the disconnect between ARBCOM and AE admins here. But that could be explained by the fact that many (most?) arbitrators were never AE regulars so as to pick up on what happens on the ground floor of the AE ecosystem. El_C 22:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Individual restrictions: when used

Proposal summary

Explicitly states when individual restrictions can be used.

Proposed language

"Administrators may impose restrictions on editors (“individual restrictions”) in contentious topics who do not follow the expectations listed in #editing a contentious topic as a special enforcement action." (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Individual_restrictions)

Rationale

This makes clear that restrictions are applied for failure to meet the expectations.

Individual restrictions: when used (feedback)

While that may seem apparent and even redundant, we found that new editors are often confused about when they can be restricted, and want to make the standard clear. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓} 22:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The anchor link Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#editing a contentious topic doesn't lead to anywhere specific. isaacl (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Checking the source, it works with an initial upper case letter: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Editing a contentious topic isaacl (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Page restrictions: enforcement

Proposal summary

Clarifies that page restrictions may be enforced by reverting noncompliant edits (whether AWARE or not) and by restricting the editor who violated the restriction (only if AWARE and there was an editnotice).

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Page_restrictions

Rationale

It was not previously clear that page restrictions could be enforced by reversion, and that those reversions are administrative actions if performed by uninvolved administrators.

Page restrictions: enforcement (feedback)

Yes, seems uncontroversial and spelling out what should have previously been obvious. — Bilorv (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Warnings

Proposal summary

Makes explicit that

• Warnings may be logged
• Logged warnings may be appealed
• Logged warnings may be imposed even if the editor was not previously aware of CT

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Warnings

Rationale

Warnings at AE have been a particularly contentious flashpoint. We seek to give firmer guidance on how warnings work, and enable them to be more effectively used to justify future sanctions.

Warnings (feedback)

• Sorry, to check. Does a warning to a non-notified user that is placed in the AE log, still need the full (if slightly reduced) "clear consensus of the non-involved admins at AE" to remove? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear: That is my read -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrator instructions

Proposal summary

Step by step instructions for administrators performing a special enforcement action

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Admin instructions

Rationale

Several administrators have noted that placing a sanction under DS is intimidating and so some avoid doing so out of fear of getting it wrong. These instructions are intended to provide step by step instructions, in a similar way that we have admin instructions for other technical/complicated tasks (e.g. closing an AfD discussion).

Administrator instructions (feedback)

• Definitely a great thing to have. I think a great barrier to entry for admins is currently the amount of text to read to even begin to understand the DS / CT procedures. Having this summary page just for admins cuts out the explanatory material which is useful but not always needed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yep, step-by-step instructions are useful for those new to a task and those experienced alike, as it's always easy to forget a step or get lost in a flood of tabs. — Bilorv (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• The logging instructions are inaccurate. Policy is "It is important for administrators to clearly and unambiguously label their actions as special enforcement actions". The proposed instruction is "it is best practice to note in the log". It's not "best practice", it's required. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Sub-pages for each Contentious Topic

Proposal summary

Each contentious topic will have a subpage of the main Contentious Topics procedure listing relevant information including:

• other topic-wide remedies (e.g. ARBPIA-wide 500/30 and 1RR)
• standard templates for the topic area
• any guidance for admins from ArbCom
• any ARCAs or other clarifications that affect the topic
• any additions to the "standard set" for the topic

Proposed language

Example at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Contentious topics/Genetically modified organisms

Rationale

This is an innovation from community-authorized discretionary sanctions (aka GS). Each one of those has a subpage that includes relevant information, templates, and guidance (see e.g. w:en:Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19). This is missing from ArbCom DS; the combination of a large set of templates, informal knowledge, and hidden documentation makes it hard for many admins to enforce discretionary sanctions as they exist now. For example, ARBAP2 relies on w:en:Template:American politics AE and w:en:Template:American politics AE/Edit notice, but those templates are not linked from the case page or any central ArbCom page. Additionally, oftentimes relevant ARCAs get buried with time, which makes those clarifications useless; keeping information about them handy will provide clarity.

Sub-pages for each Contentious Topic (feedback)

• Is the expectation that the clerks are going to maintain these? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• As a minor editorial note for the rationale, as defined at Wikipedia:General sanctions, general sanctions are sanctions that apply to all editors, versus personal sanctions. Community-authorization for use of discretionary sanctions is one form of general sanctions. isaacl (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• I think this will be useful. The current list of topics links to remedies that are probably not clear to new editors (because of the language used and the surrounding sections being usually unrelated to the DS). Having a dedicated page with content just about the CT would be useful and a good thing to be linked instead of the remedy in templates or editnotices used. Having separate pages for each CT will also likely decrease the confusion for editors having to work out what does and doesn't apply for this case. Whether the clerks maintain this or the community does would be nice to know, as some sections (like the relevant ARCAs) make sense to be clerk maintained but others (such as maybe the notes) could be something maintained by admins or editors who play a part at AE in this CT. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Adds to the paperwork for maintenance, but indeed there is a huge problem with being able to retrieve information about sanctions that you have no involvement with. — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• I think this would be a good change, despite increased maintenance burden. I remember searching for such a page when I became aware of DS, and being surprised that none existed. Femke (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Existing sanctions/continuity

Proposal summary

All previously enacted DS will be governed by the new procedures.

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Continuity

Rationale

While we're making substantial changes, we want continuity. This is a reform, not a repeal. The one exception is that page restrictions would be eligible for repeal or renewal under this procedure.

Designation of contentious topics

Proposal summary

• Change "authorisation" to "designation" of contentious topics
• Minor tweaks to how conflicts between wordings are handled

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Designation

Rationale

For consistency.

Logging

Proposal summary

Reducing and simplifying the language around logging

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Logging

Rationale

Part of an effort to make the language easier to understand for all editors while not losing nuance (i.e. footnotes about edge cases). Specific procedures about the creation of the log can be moved to the Clerks procedures page.

Logging (feedback)

I don't agree with a blanket rule that a special enforcement action must be logged before it takes effect. If, for example, a user is notified that they are being banned from editing a topic, I don't think a delay in logging the action should delay the ban. Over time it could become a factor in judging awareness, as an editor might forget their specific bans after a while. In a similar manner, if a 1-revert rule restriction is enacted on a page, and an appropriate edit notice and talk page notice are added, I do not feel the log should be considered an essential element in determining awareness. (I don't think it's reasonable to expect editors to check the log to look for page restrictions for every page they edit.) I appreciate the desire to have a stick to induce admins to update the log. Hopefully, though, the admin instructions page will be enough of a carrot to keep the log up to date. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrator's role

Proposal summary

Reducing and simplifying the language

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Administrators' role and expectations

Rationale

Part of an effort to make the language easier to understand for all editors while not losing nuance.

Administrator's role (feedback)

• That is pretty much how it works in practice already, so I don't see a problem with the wording. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

AE noticeboard

Proposal summary

Incorporates AE scope into ArbCom procedure. Allows community to use AE noticeboard for its own version of contentious topics by consensus.

Proposed language

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Noticeboard_scope or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Motion

Rationale

The community expressed that the AE noticeboard works well, and has repeatedly asked us to adopt ArbCom DS in place of community DS ("GS"). This would allow the community to use the AE noticeboard if desired.

AE noticeboard (feedback)

• This seems reasonable --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• That's fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• This will help. El_C 22:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Editnotices and talk page notices

Proposal

• Create two editnotices: one for no page restrictions, one with page restrictions
• Use bullet points for page restrictions rather than jamming everything inline (de facto current practice, but official template disallows this)
• Plan to create ArbCom-maintained templates for complicated cases, instead of leaving it to the community to hack together (e.g. w:en:Template:Editnotice GMO 1RR, w:en:Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice

Prototype

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Templates#Editnotices and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Templates#Talk_page_notice

Editnotices and talk page notices (feedback)

• Nice. I've found the current template system for editnotices confusing and having custom templates for complicated CTs will help. Having two templates also sounds a good plan. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

AE is limited

Proposal

WP:AE is a venue with limited capacity, since each case before it takes significant time and energy. Accordingly, non-controversial actions like regular page protections, vandalism, run-of-the mill disruption should be dealt with via regular processes.

Proposed language

Before imposing a special enforcement action, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft#Administrators'_role_and_expectations

AE is limited (feedback)

• Yes please. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• No. If you are capping indvidual actions at 1 year, more things are going to need to go through AE. This is mostly a CYA move to deflect from the resonable outcome to your policy changes --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

+1 — agreed (again). El_C 19:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The way I read this statement is not that the administrator should consider applying the special enforcement action as an individual admin before going to AE, but that they should consider using a regular administrative action (which is not bound by the year limit as it's not an AE action). Maybe I'm misunderstanding what regular means here, but to me that is saying not using CT / DS authorisations. With regards to the cap at a year in length for individual actions, I'm not yet sure. If there is misunderstanding perhaps the wording could be better, but that would need arbs to weigh in on what the intended meaning is. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the correct interpretation. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is already the case, I don't get why the language is necessary. I think every admin knows that if a standard admin action is most appropriate, that is the action you should take. As someone who works AE regular, I can say there really isn't a major problem with any aspect of this, as it is. Not sure what this fixes. Both AE sanctions and regular sanctions are given out at AE, and problems that don't belong there are handled quickly and aren't overloading the system. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  From my point of view this writing down of the generally understood practice is useful in this case as it gives something to point towards if questions are asked. While I don't want more content in the procedure, this IMO is more of a benefit than a negative to be stated. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of restriction

Proposal

• Change current w:en:Template:AE sanction to be for contentious topics only, which simplifies language (this template is never used for non-DS currently)
• Change "sanction" to "restriction"

Prototype

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Templates#Notice_of_restriction

Implementation motion

Proposal summary

The motion does three main things:

1. Enacts the new procedure (and invites review after one year)
2. Enacts procedural changes that would have been part of the new procedure, except they also affect some non-CT AE processes
   • Authorizes arbs and clerks, after consulting ArbCom, to update and maintain AE templates and docs including CT (e.g. alert templates, editnotices, case-specific pages)
   • Formally enacts the AE noticeboard scope referenced above
   • Formally enacts the AE logging changes referenced above
3. Changes to DS remedies:
   • Redesignates all outstanding DS as CTs (and also removes old cruft, e.g. “pages” vs “articles”, etc.) (this is a technical change necessary for the new CT procedure)

Proposal text

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Motion

Miscellaneous

Is there anything that the Committee has missed? Feel free to propose them below. Please copy the sample formatting below, inserting your own proposal. The Committee reserves the right to clerk your entry.

Sample proposal by User:Example

Proposal

Puppies are cute. I propose that ArbCom gives us all a puppy.

Proposed language

The Arbitration Committee shall provide each editor a puppy.

Sample proposal (feedback)

Proposal by Sandstein: Allow AE delegation back to ArbCom in difficult cases

Proposal

From my (perhaps outdated) experience as an admin formerly active in AE, almost all AE actions are uncontroversial because they are taken against people who are clearly not here to build a neutral encyclopedia, such as obvious POV-pushers. There are, however, cases in which valid complaints are made against the WP:UNBLOCKABLES - administrators or veteran editors with a large network of friends, on- or offwiki. In such cases, in my experience, an attempt by a single administrator to sanction them - even though theoretically authorized by the Committee - will invariable result in a huge shitstorm on various community fora. And if these cases end up back before the Committee, on appeal or otherwise, my experience is that the Committee will often attempt to evade having to take a decision, leaving the enforcing admin to take the brunt of the harassment by the sanctioned editor's friends.

This is inappropriate. It is the Committee's job to resolve intractable and divisive disputes, and to take the heat for it, not that of individual administrators with limited legitimacy and authority. Like other parts of the dispute resolution system, AE/DS are good at dealing with routine cases, but bad at taking the hard decisions for which the authority of these procedures would actually be needed.

I therefore propose to authorize admins to request that the Committee, or individual arbitrators authorized by the Committee, examine and act on such cases. The proposal applies to all of AE, not only DS, because enforcement actions in individual cases present the same difficulties. Sandstein 07:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed language

An uninvolved administrator at WP:AE may, instead of acting on an arbitration enforcement request, ask the Arbitration Committee to examine the request, if the administrator believes that the request may have merit but that acting on it would generate disproportionate controversy or disruption. The Committee, or the arbitrator(s) to whom this function may have been delegated by the Committee, shall take a binding decision about whether and how to act on the request.