Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Contentious topics/2021-22 review/Proposed decision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status as of 00:53 (UTC), Monday, 25 November 2024 (Purge)

The revision process will be conducted in four phases:

  1. Phase I community consultation (March – April 2021) (closed)
  2. Phase II community consultation (September – October 2022) (closed)
  3. Proposed decision (November – December 2022)
  4. 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).

Name

[edit]

I strongly urge the committee not to select the proposed alternative, "arbitrated topics". I think it would be better to use a name that is applicable when either the arbitration committee or the community has identified a problem area for which it is authorizing additional measures. isaacl (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly that's a point in its favor to me. I think making it easier to tell what is owned by the community and what is owned by arbcom specifically is useful. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that would blunt the effectiveness, though. What would community-authorized discretionary sanctions become? Still just discretionary sanctions? (The official documentation for all GS still uses "discretionary sanctions".) KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean all the community naming will stay the same unless the community updates. If we end up with arbitrated topics I presume they'll choose a different name. That said contentious topics remains my preference. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, we should seek to simplify the avenues for applying sanctions by placing them under the same framework, with the arbitration committee having a role in designating problem areas. It's much easier for editors if the same procedure can be followed, regardless of who identified the problem area. The procedure will be easier to write when one term can be used, instead of "X or Y". The only time I think the difference matters is if someone wants to make a case for removing the designation. I think the greater conciseness in documenting the day-to-day operating procedures is more beneficial, though. isaacl (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that's kind of what we have now isn't it? These things grew in tandem and we have a mess. The community can decide it wants to use this tool in its tool kit and continue to have community passed sanction areas. Or it could decide, as it has with desysoppings, that it wants ArbCom to be the only place for these things to happen. It's not ArbCom's responsibility to fix the community's tool (if it's even broken). However, I'm strongly in favor of giving the community access to AE - as I think that encourages the syncing of language you desire. But in terms of clarity I will say that AT gives far more clarity than hindrance imo compared to CT. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, we have community-authorized discretionary sanctions that are described as like being the arbitration committee discretionary sanctions, and so editors have to read those instructions and mentally substitute the concept of community-authorized discretionary sanctions. It would be nice if the only point of divergence was who identified the problem area where additional admin actions are available, and then the rest of the procedure would be independent of who identified the area. For daily editing, it doesn't matter who identified the area. isaacl (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Contentious topics" is a good name because it clearly communicates to outsiders what this whole system is really for. "Hey, you're editing in a controversial area, so the rules are stricter". The average person doesn't need to know or care about whether a sanction is community-authorized or arbcom authorized. I can still see the need to disambiguate, so maybe some kind of subpage type syntax along the lines of "Contentious topics/community" and "Contentious topics/arbitration" would work well? The redirects WP:CTC and WP:CTA don't seem to be actively used and are pretty catchy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's not introduce more three-letter acronym jargon if possible. isaacl (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though I anticipate opposing that specific change as well, to me they are separate discussions. It's a cart before the horse problem to agree to the one name in support of agreeing to allow some overlapping use of the machinery the community and ArbCom each have to enforce decisions made by those bodies in regard to conduct in those areas. And I don't see it as a meaningful objective of its own to try to merge the language the two groups use when dealing with such contentious topics as rise to contention on Wikipedia. (It might be valuable, but it's not its own objective at the end of the day for this discussion, for me at least.)
Regarding the name specifically, I am not a fan of arbitrated topics specifically, I am a fan of avoiding turning the words contentious topics into a term of art of the same kind as notability has been for a decade and a half and the associated confusion for everyone involved. (You can see more at my removed comment, though I might do some further copy-pasting of a lengthy comment I left on arbwiki.) I personally wanted to avoid splitting a vote between CT and something else on the something else side, so I did suggest to the drafters to propose only one alternative. I anticipate most arbs voting on any particular name will differentiate most on the line of how much a name used is a term of art or even something completely opaque versus how much it overloads some common-sense meaning of the same phrase (while there might be reasons to keep DS, I haven't seen anything to indicate ArbCom is willing to keep the old name i.e., I anticipate everyone will vote in support of changing the name). There's only so many colors we can paint the bikeshed though, and no real clear winners at the consultation besides AT and CT. We could post all of those proposed there (or those in some response to this discussion) and do some ranked choice voting if we really must. --Izno (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not blue, not terquois, not lapis, we need to paint it cerulean. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like cerulean. Izno (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
let's not choose a blue that's so heavy...how about light blue? Buffs (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that the committee isn't responsible for aligning community procedures with its procedures. I'm simply requesting that the committee choose a name that helps enable documentation to be streamlined. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: I'm in favor of "restricted topics" for the new name as suggested by Tryptofish. It addresses the term of art concern you have while also addressing Isaacl's concerns. No one raised any objections to it during the review, so I figured it would've gotten more consideration here (or at least a vote). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Restricted topics" has the same problem as "discretionary sanctions" in that it suggests that restrictions on the editing of the topic are already in place (rather than simply being an authorization for editor and page restrictions to later be placed). Additionally, it has the disadvantage of using the same word as a different concept: the actual "page restrictions" that are imposed under this procedure. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KevinL: Restrictions on the editing topic are actually already in place, though. There's (ideally) a higher bar for editor behavoir according to WP:AC/DS#guide.expect.
The problem of restriction already referring to page enforcement actions, then just rename that to page limitations. It has the same meaning more-or-less (if anything it probably describes page enforcement actions more accurately). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. Overall, I think the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Process related comment This seems like an extremely short time for comment or interactive discussion after a process that's taken quite a long time to get to this point. Many thoughtful, longstanding editors don't even log on during a given 5 day period. Does Arbcom really want to review only the comments of editors who are online every day and have the time to digest and offer comments on this important matter? After all the time it took to get to this point, what does that accomplish? It would be constructive to ensure that a broader range of editors can comment on and/or endorse the ultimate outcome. It would greatly strengthen the community's faith in the result. How about December 10? SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO two thoughts as to why it's not as bad (perhaps) as you're thinking. This draft has only minor changes from the version that was up for 30 days of community consultation in October. Also for the first 5 days Arbs aren't to make votes. However, I expect it will take at least a week for Arbs to have the discussion and do the voting necessary, during which time the community can certainly continue to leave feedback. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. My impression, however, was that late in the comment period last time there were some very different approaches put forward. I have not yet read all of the current draft, but at first glance, I was disappointed to see what appears -- I'll be blunt -- to be rather inconsequential tweaks to flawed processes that are familiar and comfortable for the small mumber of Admins and Arbs who volunteer to do this difficult enforcement work. While we all appreciate that effort, I think we can do a lot better than the current dreaft. For example, I thought the proposal by @AGK:, which came late in the last comment round, set forth a fundamentally simpler and more effective approach. I don't see much of that reflected in the proposed draft. I don't see much cost in leaving the comment open for sustained discussion. If nobody agrees with me, would be fine. It will end here. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could resolve your process comment. Moving onto your thoughts on substance, speaking only for myself I gave a lot of thought to AGK's suggestion, as was shown by my engagement with the proposal. Ultimately I don't think it improves what is being put forth here for reasons I expressed at the proposal. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The community can take the lead in modifying its procedures to give administrators more authority to deal with poor editor behaviour in problem areas. By doing so, it can take ownership over the procedures, obsolete the arbitration committee discretionary sanctions procedure, and thus simplify the entire process. With years of experience with discretionary sanctions, I think the community may be ready to revisit what tools it provides to administrators. isaacl (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is what's needed. More active discretionary actions subject to review. How that would be implemented by the community is beyond my knowledge of procedure, and I'd be interested to hear about it if you are ever so inclined. As a case in point, consider what happened in the recent incident concerning @Tamzin and Volunteer Marek: a bad sanction was swiftly and civilly reversed with arguably less time and effort than if the issue had been brought to the AE board for a pile-on. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's a good argument for discretionary actions, since those in favour of expanding their use generally seem to favour using the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (the thought being that pile-ons are more common at the incidents noticeboard than the arbitration enforcement noticeboard). I'm not sure if you're asking about ideas of what should be in a proposal, or about the steps to get a proposal approved. But in either case, a discussion at the idea Village Pump may be a good place to start. isaacl (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like the ability to use a single name for both DS and 'GS', because they're basically the same thing minus who authorises/revokes them and (currently, which is a disadvantage) where reports/appeals happen. I'm not sure about "contentious topics" -- yes, they tend to be contentious, but there are (correctly) plenty of contentious topics without a DS authorisation. So I guess they're technically "designated contentious topics", but that's a mouthful so I guess we drop the first word in most usages. I'm worried this phrasing will lead to more requests for "CT authorisation" at AN, which will pass because the topic is contentious, but without showing that extra tools are actually needed to curtail disruption, or that the topic is any more disrupted than most topics on Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotices

[edit]

In addition to my previous comments on editnotices: most editors won't benefit from an editnotice on a page that doesn't have any page-specific restrictions, as their editing behaviour is in full compliance with recommended behaviour. I do not feel that increasing the banner blindness problem on a very broad set of articles for very little benefit is a good tradeoff. isaacl (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU is also relevant here. RAN1 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not someone is able to see an editnotice is a factor in considering awareness of page-specific restrictions. In the case where an editnotice is simply informing editors that the page is in scope of a designated problem area, the editor has to be individually alerted in order to be considered aware of the designation, so the editnotice isn't a factor in considering awareness. isaacl (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the editnotices are for "optional use" by administrators when needed. Do you think that will cause more harm than good? If so, I'm open to dropping it, but I'd like to hear why you think so (even if we limit its use to administrators, for example). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned previously, I don't know if the state of affairs has changed, but it had been the case that no editnotices were present on pages affected by committee-authorized discretionary sanctions without page-specific restrictions. (COVID-19 is the one area across all the discretionary sanctions topics with editnotices, with one admin feeling strongly about having them; this area had been under community authority back then.) Thus in practice (up to that point last year at least) administrators had not seen a need to use editnotices (outside of COVID-19). I think there are too many pages that can be affected without much benefit (in essence, the editnotice just says keep behaving the way you're supposed to behave on all pages, problem area or not; and editors still have to be individually alerted), particularly if it just adds to the banner blindness problem and makes all editnotices less useful. isaacl (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way the sentence is currently framed, it could be read to say that edit notices are optional only if there are no restrictions on the page. Is that intended? If it is intended, mandatory might be a valuable add to the second part of the sentence.
I also agree with Isaacl that edit notices and even talk page notices just contribute to banner blindness in the large. So if that influences whether an edit notice is required for a page restriction.... :) Izno (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and clarified in the page restriction text too. Page restrictions have always required editnotices (see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions) so I don't think that will be a controversial clarification. Best KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not wedded to the idea of an optional page restriction so I am happy dropping that and doing it later if we decide that's what we want. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, it probably just ends up a copy of the talk page notice for the topic, so it's not like someone couldn't just copy the template into Editnotice space. Izno (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Izno (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment: although appearance is one contributing factor to banner blindness, I think frequency of use is a more significant one with editnotices. That's not something that can be easily dealt with centrally. I'm not suggesting they be prohibited (we've already had an RfC saying admins should be able to decide when they want to put editnotices on an article for which discretionary sanctions have been authorized), but as I mentioned in the previous discussion, I think they should be discouraged. Perhaps some discussion of the banner blindness issue can be placed in the documentation. isaacl (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining an equivalent of Template:Ds/aware

[edit]
Extended content

The current section on Awareness has a couple of oversights that could be addressed. The first is that WP:AWARENESS links to WP:Raising awareness which isn't about discretionary sanctions. The second is that the proposed wording gets rid of the current Template:Ds/aware, which allows a user to signal on their talk page they are WP:AWARE of restrictions and no longer have to be spammed with notices.
I'd prefer that some form of Template:Ds/aware be kept given that it's something that helps reduce the bureaucracy surrounding ds-notices. This is likely compatible with the goal of DS-reform given that the template was added to reduce the amount of notices being sent out. [1] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the footnote but a user will still be able to do Ct/aware. Thanks for the copy editing suggestions. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Thank you, didn't catch that. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logging still as difficult?

[edit]
Extended content

One of the big pain points the various discussions to date have shown to discourage new admins from joining DS (or whatever) patrol is that nuisance that is logging.

Not that it's unnecessary (or non-useful), but as far as I can tell, while the text about logging is different, the actual "how to log" hasn't significantly changed. I could be wrong - please let me know if so.

If I'm correct, is there the possibility of, say, a script that could support such? I realise that "you, editor, make this script by order of ArbCom" is not one of their powers, but some influence to encourage it might be a possibility? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think logging is an important accountability measure given the broad latitude admins have. That said ways to make it easier would definitely be welcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Izno (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness

[edit]
Extended content

The template should link to

The bullet about page restrictions should note where people can find out what pages have what restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Those got lost in some copying. Done. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the idea of bots and/or automated process deciding who should receive an alert, but don't have an issue with them being delivery that way to people a human has identified as benefiting from an alert. Disallowing automated delivery is significantly preferable to allowing automated selection. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

don't have an issue with them being delivery that way to people a human has identified as benefiting from an alert I don't see this as having much benefit at all over hand-delivery at the end of the day and without the addition of a guard could open up to not-knowing at all who might have identified a user for alerting, meaning it could be abused. Izno (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too often I've seen users avoid and even evade a sanction by virtue of an AWARE technicality, even though they were clearly aware of whatever given DS. I realize that, by design there are components to DS that are contrary to WP:NOTBURO, but this is one area where I feel more flexibility is warranted wrt common sense. Just a general restatement of my position in the review phase. El_C 13:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing that has maybe gotten missed – which suggests that we should make it more prominent – is that note 4 of the procedure says that an editor is AWARE if they have otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic. Hopefully that should greatly tamp down the escaping-by-technicalities. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand the point of awareness/alerts. Sure, awareness for page/topic-wide restrictions (like 1RR) should be necessary, because you can't expect people to behave differently to what's considered accepted wiki-wide (e.g. 3RR) without telling them what different behaviour is expected of them (e.g. don't revert more than once on this page). But for discretionary sanctions? I don't see the point. After getting an alert which "suggests nothing wrong with your behaviour" what are you supposed to do to avoid being sanctioned? It seems to me like your options are to either stop editing in the area, or continue editing and potentially get sanctioned. So basically, I don't see what the point of the alert is. Can one of the drafters explain this to me? (courtesy to L235) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what are you supposed to do to avoid being sanctioned? That question is directly answered by the draft template language (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Proposed decision#Awareness, in the "Draft template language" box), under "Within contentious topics, you must [...]". I'm happy to talk through the affirmative case for alerts – which I think are worth keeping but not so much that I'd complain if ArbCom simply got rid of them – but maybe I've already fully answered your question. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thanks for the reminder to create notice templates for optional use in topics with topicwide restrictions (e.g. topicwide 1RR). They were on the list for post-enactment template changes but didn't directly feature in the PD. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I mean is: aren't you supposed to do all of those things (in the bullet points) anyway, regardless of the topic area? I get that good etiquette is more strictly enforced in DS topic areas, and more slack for poor behaviour may be offered in non-DS topic areas, but there's not a different standard of behaviour right? (most, if not all, logged sanctions I've seen would be IMO disruptive, and sanction worthy if persistent, in any topic area)
In my mind that makes the alerting stuff a 'reminder' of the standards of good etiquette, almost like a warning shot, but the template explicitly says it's not an indication of misbehaviour, and indeed it needn't be a warning shot if the user were subject to mass/random alerting already. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that behavior in DS is more strictly enforced because the bar before sanction is lowered, the number of editors required to impose a sanction is less in many instances (for instance admins can't normally enact topic bans unilaterally), and the severity of sanction for a given offense may some times be higher. So yes the bullet points Kevin lists are the same across the project, and that's by design and to help make DS less imposing, but both sanction severity and the fact that WP:BOLD as a guideline is not a good idea in DS topics feel like large enough changes that letting people know about this is worthwhile. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The major functions of DS include both the substantive differences (e.g. authority to impose broader range of editor and page restrictions, the appeals system, the AE noticeboard) and the signaling effect of DS. DS authorization signals to editors and administrators that ArbCom wants heightened enforcement in some way. (Indeed, "heightened enforcement topics" was on the table as a name for DS, but it was axed for being too clunky.) Alerts serve to put editors on notice of this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It occurs to me that the alert should not be needed if a user has participated at AE/ARCA/ARBCOM, which is not infrequently the case. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93: Under note d, editors are also aware if they have participated in any process relating to the contentious topic (such as a request or appeal at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), or an Arbitration Committee process page (requests for arbitration and subpages) or if they have otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic. As I write above (and as wisely suggested by an arbitrator before this PD round), this is making me think we should make that footnote more prominent by moving its text into the body (see also this question). It was in a footnote as a stylistic choice to avoid clogging up the main text, but that seems to be causing confusion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not trying to dismiss the transition cost but having this long list of edge cases in the document itself strikes me as a good reason to prefer it in the footnote where edge cases belong. Overwhelmingly people will be aware via notices especially because notices don't expire and so there won't be some reason to say "oh has something happened in the last year in one of these other areas" except it instances where a person will be trying to argue they're not AWARE. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, L235; my concern, though, is that as worded it seems to me to apply after an initial alert, which may understandably not be delivered if an editor participates at AE, and indeed under our current system would not need to be delivered if an editor participates at AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. We'll be sure to clarify that those are independently valid ways for someone to be aware. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My biggest concern about awareness is that as a user, wanting to make sure someone is aware, it needs to be easy for me to determine whether I should alert them or not. I do not want to be stuck in the situation of "I must alert them in order to complain, but woe unto me if I alert them and they were already aware." It should be obvious one way or the other. In particular, if there are four different ways they might be aware, checking all of them can be troublesome. I haven't been following this process particularly carefully. Will the above situation still come up? Adoring nanny (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There will be basically be 2 templates - with standardized section headers - to look for and you no longer have to check for expiration. So it should be easier. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals and amendments

[edit]
Extended content
  • The option for administrator's revoking or changing a contentious restriction out of process to receive a sanction other than desysopping (but still allowing for desysopping) should be explicitly available. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think may is doing enough work here, but I wouldn't hate an adjustment. Izno (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "May result in sanctions up to and including desysop" isn't the worse thing in the world I guess but I personally would be hard pressed to see the current wording as "may either deysop or do nothing" as the only options available. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, I think it might be possible for ArbCom to do more than just desysop an admin who changes a restriction out of process, which would make both old and suggested texts meh. Izno (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After consideration, my preference is for keeping the current text. I imagine we wouldn't do more than desysop just for changing a restriction out of process but under the right circumstances we would desysop just for changing a restriction out of process. Best. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • The limits in this section do not apply to restrictions imposed by a single administrator that have lost their status as contentious topic restriction under #Individual restrictions or #Page restrictions. I don't know what this means. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this was a tricky one to convey, and I'd appreciate your help in wordsmithing. Under the new procedure, restrictions imposed by a single administrator become ordinary admin actions after one year (appealable like any ordinary admin action). That section is trying to convey that the new rule does apply to page restrictions but does not apply to individual restrictions, for the reasons expressed here. But that's definitely getting lost in translation somewhere. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf did L235's amendment to use the phrase Editor restrictions help here or does it need more work? (I've also made some grammar consistent which I noticed.) Izno (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is one possible clarification:

    Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator,[a] or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed or last renewed more than one year ago, if the restriction was originally imposed by a single administrator, or
    • An appeal is successful (see below).

    An appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    The limits in this section do not apply to restrictions imposed by a single administrator that have lost their status as contentious topic restrictions under #Editor restrictions or #Page restrictions.

    Thoughts on this? I want to make sure this language is understandable before it gets voted on. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 13:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think moving it there makes a lot of sense. I'd probably go with The contentious topic restriction was imposed by a single administrator and it was imposed or last renewed more than a year ago. Izno (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think part of the issue is that I didn't parse "individual restrictions" as meaning "restrictions on an individual" but as "restrictions not imposed as part of a group". I know its a large change at this stage, but maybe renaming "individual restrictions" to "editor restrictions" would avoid this (and potentially other) confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a bad idea. I know "editor restrictions" was on the table during an earlier draft but can't seem to remember why it got removed. Maybe we can bring it back. In the general sense, WP:EDR calls it "editing restrictions" (or since that's somewhat ambiguous, "individual editors subject to editing restrictions"), or "personal sanctions". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Page restrictions strike me as also being editor restrictions, just not being levied on the individual. Izno (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only in the same way that restrictions on editors are also page restrictions in that they restrict the pages that the individual can edit. Using "restrictions applied to a page" and "restrictions applied to an editor" is the level you have to get to remove all ambiguity. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike appeals at WP:AE and at (Barkeep49's specter) WP:ARCA, appeals at WP:AN have no formal word limit. This, as mentioned a few days ago in my hastily-archived, long-winded ramble at ARCA, is where 80 percent (easily) of all appeals are filed. Thus, we often get appeals that, instead of being at around the ~500 word limit, are thousands and thousands of words long. So, while it's understandable that appellants prefer AN over AE and ARCA, due to the convoluted templates lack of accessibility in those forums (see my #Convoluted templates and accessibility note about that from a few hours ago) — these sort of unrestricted WP:TEXTWALLs are, in my view, both a hindrance and a drain on, well, everyone. El_C 17:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the idea of unifying the appeals length at the two venues. I also support, post change when they'll be authorized to do so, the clerks developing a better template for editors to use when appealing at AN. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I like the wording "if and only if" - that has a specific meaning in logic that I'm not sure applies here (and I'm not sure I correctly understand the specific meaning). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: Thanks for writing. I'm happy to revise it if a revision would lead to a substantial increase in clarity. The current wording conveys that for an administrator to have the authority to revoke a restriction, it is necessary and sufficient to meet one of the three conditions in the bullet points. In other words, if one of the criteria is met, the authority exists; otherwise, the authority does not exist. That's why the term "if and only if" is used (see Necessity and sufficiency and If and only if). Can you point to the unclarity there? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. The Iff description confused me, but I think Necessity and sufficiency clarified that the wording as it is should work. Thanks for double-checking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use:

[edit]
Extended content
  • Change contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. to specify this is true unless explicitly stated otherwise. It is sometimes desirable to prohibit someone from editing articles related to a given topic without restricting their talk page use for example. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done by someone. Izno (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The procedure (and summary) appear not to allow for the case of an administrator explicitly allowing modification or removal without consultation (either generally or specifically). Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where modification or removal are explicitly allowed without consultation, the result is (less than) a normal admin action. The central point of AE/DS/CT is having an additional restriction on these things, so I don't see why this would be relevant to AE/DS/CT. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ... in cases where the first-restricting admin explicitly allows any other admin to modify a restriction? Or always? I don't think allowing open season on individual admin actions in contentious topics is in the cards, but I could see the former potentially. Izno (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (And I see this was mentioned above now. --Izno (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    Hm. Changes are allowed if [t]he administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change – I guess we could add an explicit provision allowing administrators to consent in advance to changes? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think adding the ability for an administrator to consent in advance to changes makes sense, but exactly how might this works is less clear. Whether an admins normal blanket approval to make changes to their admin actions also applies to CT without explicitly saying "this includes CT" it may be something to discuss. As CT provides the individual admin further abilities such as being able to place a TBAN, there therefore is no alternative normal admin action as mentioned by ToBeFree for all situations. (comment made without my clerk hat on) Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a possible amendment here. Izno (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logging clarification

[edit]
Extended content

Clarify whether in the event of an editor unambiguously taking action without logging that action within a reasonable period, the log may or may not be updated by any other [editor/uninvolved editor/admin/uninvolved admin]. (My preference allow logging by anyone). Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is addressed in note "k": If an enforcing administrator clearly intends to impose a contentious topic restrictions but forgets to label their action, other administrators may label the action (such as through a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick

[edit]
Extended content

The only real suggestion I have atm is that what is currently note d (Editors should exercise caution before re-alerting an editor to the same contentious topic as a previous alert, as there is a presumption that an editor remains aware.) should come at the end of the first paragraph in #Awareness. Otherwise, it looks great! (I do reserve the right to find more things to complain about.) HouseBlastertalk 00:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convoluted templates and accessibility

[edit]
Extended content

The WP:TBAN template at {{AE sanction/topicban}} is almost as inaccessible as the WP:ARCA template at {{Arbitration clarification request}} (which says a lot). I don't think I've ever used that template as intended. I mostly just go to WP:AE, find one that was already posted, then adjust it accordingly to whatever the given particulars are. Maybe work on making that (those) more accessible...? El_C 13:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. This proposal includes a backstop provision (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Proposed decision § Enforcement templates and procedural documents) allowing for the templates to actually be updated. When that provision is passed, we'll be able to update the templates as needed – and it sounds like it is indeed needed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Kevin. As I've mentioned in past discussions, a big issue with these convoluted templates is that they break (i.e. will not display) if all the parameters are not filled in a super-precise way. This, therefore, reduces access to otherwise competent neurodivergent admins (and absent-minded idiots such as myself). El_C 17:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, I think what we need is a Twinkle-like tool for templates and logging. The non-AE ordinary block templates are not so much less complex, but they're easy to get right because scripts have got you covered. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would not cover moi, as I'm probably the only active admin to still be using only default with zero add-ons. But, I'm one person, so that's okay. I can keep copy/pasting from WP:AE, and as for WP:ARCA — the less I'm on the Committee's crosshairs, probably the better! ;) El_C 20:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is genuinely impressive (and give me shudders at the thought of attempting all admin activities on vanilla), but really I'd back both the template rewrite and a tool (or tool addon) for DS/CT. I'm aware, of course, that it's always easy for the person who can't do either of those to request it, but they have been persistent asks for a long while. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just never found the need for em, believe it or not. I'm not an internetz luddite; I edit .ini files in games all the time! Maybe I've just grown accustomed to it, though. El_C 21:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timed TBANS, still a thing?

[edit]
Extended content

One of the unwritten best practices arrived at WP:AE years ago was that timed WP:TBANs are usually useless (barring some exceptions). This is similar to the unwritten best practice arrived at WP:RFPP years ago against preemptively protecting DS pages (again, barring some notable exceptions). This was a major reason in myself coming to the realization that, and criticism of, many (most?) Committee members being out of touch as to what actually goes on on the ground floor of day-to-day DS enforcement. So, please update me, it that proposal still a thing? Thanks! El_C 13:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I recall, my objection to this proposal at the review phase was met with universal (or near-universal) agreement from non-arb participants, so I'm hoping that this idea has since been abandoned. El_C 14:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: There are no longer limits on TBAN lengths in this proposal. Instead, under this proposal, after one year, restrictions imposed by a single admin become ordinary admin actions (still in effect, but removable like any other block etc.). This is intended to make it less painful to review whether old restrictions (e.g. old indefinite page restrictions) are still needed. If this would still be a problem, I'd be glad to hear what changes are needed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like. Sounds good to me. Thanks! El_C 17:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there actually TBANs that have been given to a user as an ordinary admin action? Page blocks of course, but full-on topic bans? Izno (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does the removal procedure for such a thing look like? :) Izno (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect it to be something similar to:
  • If it's completely without question the restriction is no longer needed, then any admin can just remove it
  • If it's almost certainly no longer needed, make a note somewhere (including on the talk page of the admin who imposed the sanction if they're still around) that you will remove it in a few days if nobody has any objections
  • If it's not certain either way, then start a discussion somewhere and if there is a rough consensus after a few days implement that
  • If it's likely still needed, recommend they start a formal appeal
  • If it's (almost) certainly still needed, note they can start an appeal if they wish but it's unlikely to be successful.
Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BANAUTH, individual administrators may only TBAN users under DS/GS or as unblock conditions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this reform go far enough?

[edit]
Extended content

The whole process to date can be summarised as follows. We had a consultation. Questions were framed around the existing superstructure of DS, which is like having a statutory reform consultation that poses questions only about the sections of the statute that you're trying to reform. (I accept that four general questions were asked, but the arbitrators have drawn limited conclusions from those.) Despite the consultation's limiting methodology, a consensus view still shone through, that the system isn't working and is overly complicated. We've now ended up with an extremely complicated minor update to the system that, according to prosesize.js, reduces the existing system by only 28 words. The drafting arbitrators are now happily voting on the replacement system. Does this reform really go far enough? It might be better now to have further rounds of consultation, or to ask the community to design a replacement system. AGK (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The unintuitive, newcomer-confusing name "discretionary sanctions" is finally going to be replaced by "contentious topics". The topics are contentious. Simple. Some users may need the help of a dictionary to translate "contentious", but at least the result is clear and understandable.
The strange "awareness" definition that often failed to match actual awareness is finally going to be replaced by something more accurate: Once notified, someone is aware. Genuinely still-unaware users can explain the situation and be treated correctly too.
And if it's just for these two points, I'm happy about the changes. This doesn't have to be the end of the road of course, and that's not being questioned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would welcome the idea of the community using its authority to make a replacement system for community GS. And if it works ArbCom would be foolish to not adopt it. But it should be unsurprising that the system isn't overhauled given that when asked the community came to consensus that Discretionary Sanctions serves a purpose and remains effective in creating conditions for high quality information to be presented to our readers. So no there was not any consensus that the current system isn't working, just a minority but non-negligible number of number of editors who question whether DS is effective in quelling disruption, has no definable purpose, and who suggest DS may instead be effective at creating chilling effects which discourage editors from contributing in those areas in which you fall. I don't say that to dismiss you - as I noted above to SPECIFICO I have taken this feedback quite seriously - but is to note that ArbCom is following the input given to it.
The other principles that were identified for fixing include that AWARENESS was broken and that the barrier to entry for DS, both editing and adminning, was high. I think it's fair to argue that based on a word count that the barrier to entry is still too high. To which I would point out other ways, besides narrowing the amount of words, that this attempts to address those problems.
But I want to reiterate just how happy I would be for the community to try its own ideas and for them to work in a way that ArbCom could decide that its intervention was not only unnecessary but that under ARBPOL needed to abolish DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AGK. Thanks for your thoughtful comments here and at the last consultation. In addition to echoing Barkeep49's observations about the community consultation and about community-authorized discretionary sanctions, I will note that there are multiple ways for the DS system to be made more understandable and approachable.
Simplifying the procedure text is one way, and I think we've made good progress on that front by adding in a lead section and a clear indication of the expectations for editors. But there's a limit to how simple the procedure can be while still capturing the important nuances that would cause more harm than good to remove. (Believe me, we tried a few alternatives, including writing the entire procedure in the form of an FAQ or Q&A. It did not work well.)
Another, arguably more important, way to make the system more understandable is to improve the templates and documentation pages. Before this proposal, DS templates carried a warning that you must not make significant changes to the wording or functionality of this template without the committee's consent (e.g. Template:Ds/alert). Getting the "committee's consent" is quite an undertaking and, in my view, one of the most important things we've done in this proposal is to authorize a much more streamlined way to modify templates and procedural documents. My hope is that a redesigned set of templates and procedural documents will be a major positive effect of this process. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify/rephrase what you mean by the last part of the last sentence? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom's authority to enact the discretionary sanctions system generally comes from the first point of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Scope and responsibilities, granting us authority over serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. If the community develops solutions that make it "able to resolve" the problems without ArbCom (without DS), ArbCom's continuing intervention would not only be no longer necessary, it would no longer be authorized by ARBPOL. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

[edit]

Regarding the term consensus: I agree that consensus is the base term, encompassing all types of consensus ("X consensus"). I think "clear consensus" conveys the idea of a substantial agreement among most participants as well as a significant number of participants. I don't think the term "rough consensus" should be broken down further than "a consensus that is not a clear consensus". There is a flexibility underlying English Wikipedia's consensus traditions that is lost if the concept is tiered, which is going to result in arguing over how to codify the different categories. isaacl (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name (part 2)

[edit]

I'm relatively new to this part of Wikipedia, and had I not read ACE2022 candidates' election statements, I'd never come to know that there is all this review going on right now. Is it too late to suggest a name? As I believe something like Safeguarded topics (WP:SGT/WP:ST) would be a better fit? I read Izno and feel convinced that "contentious topic" might not be that great of a term to be honest. As someone raised in Phase II page, it is too generic of a term and have an existing meaning beyond the ArbCom enforced sanctions. And "arbitrated topic" might not really be understandable to those unfamiliar with the ArbCom, and can never be extended to GS areas per Wugapodes. I believe SGT would be plain English, understandable to non-native speakers, but not too plain, and extensionable to GS. It conveys its meaning quite well, that a certain topic area is safeguarded from vandalism, etc. Consider reading the proposal page, but with every instance of CT replaced by SGT. I feel like it fits very well in there. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bots placing alerts

[edit]

@Barkeep49: re feels like we're adding "wikilaw" for something no one has asked for I believe the idea of bots delivering alerts received community consensus in RfC in the past, but was rejected by ArbCom. So I'm not sure it's something no one has asked for, per se. It's to be expected you won't keep hearing about it if you turned it down already. ProcSock (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of that community consensus. Do you have a link? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_152#Bot_to_deliver_Template:Ds/alert but it seems I'm misremembering the discussion/timeline slightly, in whether it had a community consensus in favour or not. Seems the RfC never got an uninvolved close since ArbCom acted with a motion a few days after the RfC was started. ProcSock (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like absent that motion the 60%+ might have been enough to find consensus. So thanks it's still helpful and I'm going to slightly modify my stance. But that discussion still shows one of my concerns - I think getting bot notification right is going to be hard to do. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Contentious_topics/2021-22_review/Proposed_decision&oldid=1133682826"