User:L235/sanctions verbiage

We could use some more clarity in how we talk about "sanctions" and editing restrictions.

Currently, we refer to three distinct things as "sanctions":

1. Restrictions that apply to individual editors (such as site-bans, topic bans, and editing restrictions) are called sanctions. We say that a user has been sanctioned, or that sanctions apply to a user.
2. Restrictions on how all editors may edit on particular pages or sets of pages (such as 1RR for particular pages or 500/30 requirements for a particular topic area) are also called sanctions. Here, we say that sanctions apply to a topic area or that a topic area has been sanctioned. We might also say that sanctions apply to all users who edit within the topic area.
3. An authorization for administrators to apply sanctions within a topic area (such as ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions or community-authorized "general sanctions") is also, itself, sometimes called a sanction. We might say that sanctions apply to the topic area, or that discretionary sanctions apply, or that the area is subject to sanctions or the topic area has been sanctioned.

Items #2 and #3 are confusing for people who haven't had years of experience on Wikipedia. The word "sanction" indicates a penalty or some finding of misconduct; editors who are told that "sanctions apply when editing a topic area" can be naturally confused. #3 is even more confusing than #2: in #3, no actual restrictions might apply when editing a particular article, but editors might still be told that, e.g., "the page is under discretionary sanctions".

Thus, I suggest that we be more precise in referring to these three distinct concepts. Here are my recommended best practices:

1. Restrictions that apply to individual editors may be referred to as "sanctions" without limitation.
2. Restrictions of general application on the editing of specific pages or topics should be referred to as "page restrictions", "topic restrictions", "restrictions on the editing of a particular [page|topic]", or (discouraged) "editing restrictions". The word "restriction" avoids the connotation of a finding of misconduct, or a discouragement to engage with the particular topic, that typically attaches to "sanctions".
3. An authorization for sysops to apply sanctions in a defined topic area is a concept that should be explained in full sentences, and never by saying that "discretionary sanctions apply to you when editing this topic" or similar structures. "Administrators have been authorized by [the community|the Arbitration Committee] to impose certain additional sanctions on editors within [a given topic area] for misconduct, disruption, or failure to strictly abide by policy." <-- is an example of a longer explanation on discretionary sanctions.