Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Updating Template:Ds/talk notice to make it clearer

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

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

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

Alternatively there is a more wordy and detailed message:

{{Ds/talk notice|saq|long}} gives:

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

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

Topic code	Area of conflict	Designated by	Relevant information	Relevant decision
a-a aa2	Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts	the Arbitration Committee and the community	WP:CT/A-A	decision
a-i	the Arab–Israeli conflict	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/A-I	decision
ab	abortion	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/AB	decision
ap tpm	post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/AP	decision
blp	articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/BLP	decision
cam acu	Complementary and Alternative Medicine	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/CAM	decision
cc gw	climate change	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/CC	decision
cf ps	pseudoscience and fringe science	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/CF	decision
cid	discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/CID	decision
covid	Coronavirus disease 2019	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/COVID	decision
crypto btc bt et	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	the community	WP:GS/CRYPTO	decision
e-e b ee	the Balkans or Eastern Europe	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/EE	decision
fg	Falun Gong	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/FG	decision
gc	governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/GC	decision
gg ggtf gap gas pa	gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/GG	decision
gmo	genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/GMO	decision
horn	the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/HORN	decision
ipa	India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/IPA	decision
irp iranpol	post-1978 Iranian politics	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/IRP	decision
kurd	the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed	the Arbitration Committee and the community	WP:CT/KURD	decision
mj	Michael Jackson	the community	WP:GS/MJ	decision
pr	Prem Rawat	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/PR	decision
pw	professional wrestling	the community	WP:GS/PW	decision
r-i	the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/R-I	decision
rusukr	the Russo-Ukrainian War	the community	WP:GS/RUSUKR	decision
sasg caste	South Asian social groups	the community	WP:GS/CASTE	decision
scwisil syr syria scw isil isis	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	the community	WP:GS/SCW&ISIL	decision
sl	Sri Lanka	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/SL	decision
tt	the Troubles	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/TT	decision
ukunits uku	measurement units in the United Kingdom	the community	WP:GS/UKU	decision
uyghur	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	the community	WP:GS/UYGHUR	decision

or

Topic code	Area of conflict	Designated by	Relevant information	Relevant decision
a-a aa2	Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts	the Arbitration Committee and the community	WP:CT/A-A	decision
a-i	the Arab–Israeli conflict	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/A-I	decision
ab	abortion	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/AB	decision
ap tpm	post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/AP	decision
blp	articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/BLP	decision
cam acu	Complementary and Alternative Medicine	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/CAM	decision
cc gw	climate change	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/CC	decision
cf ps	pseudoscience and fringe science	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/CF	decision
cid	discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/CID	decision
covid	Coronavirus disease 2019	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/COVID	decision
crypto btc bt et	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	the community	WP:GS/CRYPTO	decision
e-e b ee	the Balkans or Eastern Europe	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/EE	decision
fg	Falun Gong	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/FG	decision
gc	governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/GC	decision
gg ggtf gap gas pa	gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/GG	decision
gmo	genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/GMO	decision
horn	the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/HORN	decision
ipa	India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/IPA	decision
irp iranpol	post-1978 Iranian politics	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/IRP	decision
kurd	the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed	the Arbitration Committee and the community	WP:CT/KURD	decision
mj	Michael Jackson	the community	WP:GS/MJ	decision
pr	Prem Rawat	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/PR	decision
pw	professional wrestling	the community	WP:GS/PW	decision
r-i	the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/R-I	decision
rusukr	the Russo-Ukrainian War	the community	WP:GS/RUSUKR	decision
sasg caste	South Asian social groups	the community	WP:GS/CASTE	decision
scwisil syr syria scw isil isis	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	the community	WP:GS/SCW&ISIL	decision
sl	Sri Lanka	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/SL	decision
tt	the Troubles	the Arbitration Committee	WP:CT/TT	decision
ukunits uku	measurement units in the United Kingdom	the community	WP:GS/UKU	decision
uyghur	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	the community	WP:GS/UYGHUR	decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Editors at this page may be subject to Discretionary sanctions

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

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

• I'm happy with the latest proposal, and with NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestion. My preference is slightly towards the one Doug points to above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• I agree entirely with NewsAndEventsGuy. Worse, we were promised another comprehensive review of DS over two years ago (the last one we had four or five year ago, in Roger Davies's tenure), and it never happened. While DS may possibly be useful in some perennial content areas, they've been a problematic in internal ones (e.g. WP:ARBATC), and this template system has been an unmitigated disaster.

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

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

  All that said, the proposals above are a tiny improvement and I support them, and without a desire to nit-pick over exact wording. But it's like putting a Band-aid on a shotgun wound. At bare minimum, a bot should deliver templates to anyone who edits a page (or talkpage thereof) subject to DS. Better yet, delete the userspace templates and assume, rationally, that "ignorance of the law is no exception" and that people who edit repeatedly in DS-covered topics are aware of the DS. Or just get rid of DS, which is the proximal and sole cause of "adminship is not/shouldn't be a big deal" no longer being true.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

RE: E.M.Gregory

I've never heard of Naomi Klein, but I was curious to see if I could trace down the source for the alleged "the most democratic country in the Western hemisphere" quote. It appears that this quote is not from Klein, but from an article published by The Nation. Her only connection to this article that I can see is that she Tweeted it.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussion about building tools for managing Editing Restrictions

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

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

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

Scope of article sanctions

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

Arbitration sanctions imposed on articles related to the Arab-Israel conflict have been added to talk page at Linda Sarsour. [2] Does this article properly warrant being covered by such sanctions? I'm dubious. If so, then a host of persons, perhaps thousands, will be covered. Perhaps they should be, but I wanted to be clear. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can notify editors of the arbcom decision. That's done all the time usually on their talk page. But if you are trying to imply that that a page is under a specific sanction, say 1RR or extended confirmed, that's not okay. The rules for page level sanctions are clear[3]. Notices that put the 1RR warning on the edit page or even just say 1RR on the talk page must be a logged sanction and should be removed if an admin has not created that sanction. In short, the only purpose of a non-admin placing a notice on a talk page is for notification. I doubt that notification would be sufficient under the requirements for DS notice which makes the effort rather pointless. --DHeyward (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Only page restrictions placed under discretionary sanctions must be logged at the discretionary sanctions log. The four sanctions on {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} are not discretionary sanctions. They are ArbCom remedies. They are active on all pages in the topic area with no need to log or use the template. Use of the template is encouraged to make editors aware of the sanction. Any editor, including non-admins, may place that template. This is not the same as placing templates that apply page restrictions that did not exist before (e.g. {{American politics AE}}) because those sanctions are discretionary sanctions that only exist on a page if an admin places them and logs appropriately. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As a note on terminology, all pages within a topic area for which discretionary sanctions are authorized are considered to be "under discretionary sanctions". It does not require further action or logging before discretionary sanctions are "active" on any particular article. Separately, admins can place page restrictions as one of many discretionary sanction options. If they do, then the page would be subject to 1RR, consensus required, or whatever other page restriction was put in place. Being "under discretionary sanctions" merely means that an uninvolved administrator can sanction editors who are behaving disruptively subject to the rules at WP:AC/DS. Entirely separate from discretionary sanctions, the entire ARBPIA topic area is under 1RR from an ArbCom remedy. That applies to all pages, with no logging needed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks User:BU Rob13 for the clarification. I think some of the problem here was that User:DHeyward is, AFAIK, more accustomed to editing the American policy pages...AFAIK, the sanctions applying to those pages are somewhat different from the ARBPIA area. Huldra (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
      • The issue is that the Sarsour page is not a page where sanctions apply. Her page is not about the IP conflict, even though one section of her page might be. We should not be adding pages to the sanction just because one section might be there. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Take that up with the 3 different admins who have supported it, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Is your talk page under ARBPIA sanctions? I have tried time and time to reason with admins in placing articles under sanctions when it shouldn't. And I am taking it up, I posted on this page in a discussion on the topic. Should we go now and tag 80% of the articles because they might be "broadly construed" as being part of the conflict? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• The gist of all of this is at ARCA currently. I'll try to summarize what I think is occurring. 1) editors must be made aware of discretionary sanction. Article talk page notices are insufficient. 2). Discretionary sanctions imposed on an article must be logged per the instructions. Vagueness is not okay. If there is any doubt as to whether an article is under sanction or whether an editor is properly notified, it is improper to impose an AE sanction on them. It's too easy to clarify to operate under a cloud of confusion. An editor that can't enforce an AE sanction doesn't have the ability to place articles under the AE umbrella. It's not clear at all that the Sarsour article is inherently covered by ARBPIA and it would require an admin to enforce 1RR or implement extended/confirmed. Merely placing the notice on the page is insufficient warning to editors. Without logging, it would be impossible to track when appeals have been granted (i.e. if consensus of uninvolved admins removes an article from ARBPIA jurisdiction, that's an AE action that needs to be logged because it would require consensus to re-add it, not just the passing whim of an editor). Declaring a page as falling under the ARBPIA umbrella is an AE/DS action that must be logged and tracked if only to determine the criteria for removal. Without a log or AE action, any editor or admin would be free to undo it. --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please read WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions. It applies to all pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed, not just those designated and logged by an administrator. This has been pointed out to you by three editors now, yet you persist in repeating your error. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)