| Revision as of 11:14, 7 December 2022 editL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators27,344 edits testing?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:52, 28 August 2023 edit undoL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators27,344 edits + | ||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| U4CBC thoughts | |||
| Through the ], the Arbitration Committee has enacted the following proposals: | |||
| * "sanctions" -> "remedies". We've been trying to move away from "sanctions" for some time; see ]. | |||
| {{cot|1=Language}} | |||
| * A bit worried about the choice of regions. Do we know how many editors come from each region? | |||
| The ] (DS) system will be renamed "contentious topics" (CT), and restrictions placed within the DS system will be referred to as "contentious topic restrictions". | |||
| * This seems like a lot for a committee of 16 people to take on. In the spirit of the ''coordinating'' that the U4C is supposed to do, I will try to write up specific proposals on the ways in which the U4C can delegate its authority when appropriate, to reduce its overall caseload. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| ** I also suggest that the U4C's subcommittees in some cases include non-U4C members. | |||
| {{cot|Nutshell}} | |||
| ** The administrative support for U4C should be significant, professional, and confidential. Don't underestimate the challenge of establishing effective, e.g., CRM systems. | |||
| Contentious topics are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project. Administrators are allowed to impose ] on editors who do not follow ] within contentious topics. Administrators are also allowed to set ] on pages within a contentious topic to prevent inappropriate editing. | |||
| ** Mail for the U4C should first go through a screening and organization process before directly going into the inbox of the U4C members. I recommend delegating the task of sorting mail, assigning internal tracking numbers, linking related mail, holding cases until they are ripe for decision before they go into U4C members' inboxes, etc., to trusted non-members or administrative support staff. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| * Relationship between U4C and Global Council? | |||
| {{cot|Lead section}} | |||
| * The U4C should establish an advisory group among high-level editors with NDA access, similar to the role of the English Misplaced Pages ] with the enwiki ArbCom. Perhaps a single mailing list for members of high-level decision making bodies as defined in the charter. | |||
| A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as '''contentious topics''' (abbreviated '''CT'''). These are ] topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee.{{efn|The community has its own version of a contentious topics system. These are most often referred to as ] (GS), but are sometimes referred to as community sanctions or community discretionary sanctions. }} Not all topics that are controversial have been designated as contentious topics{{snd}}this procedure applies only to those topics designated by the Arbitration Committee (]). When editing a contentious topic, Misplaced Pages's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Misplaced Pages administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project. | |||
| {{anchor|expectations}} | |||
| <div style="border: 1px solid grey; background-color: #fffff6; border-radius: 0.5em; padding: 10px;"> | |||
| '''{{vanchor|Editing a contentious topic}}''' | |||
| Within contentious topics, you must edit '''carefully''' and '''constructively''', refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and: | |||
| * adhere to the ]; | |||
| * comply with all applicable ]; | |||
| * follow ]; | |||
| * comply with any ] in force within the area of conflict; and | |||
| * refrain from ]. | |||
| You should '''err on the side of caution''' if you are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. | |||
| </div> | |||
| Within contentious topics, administrators have the ability to set ] (restrictions on editing by particular editors) and ] (special rules on how particular pages can be edited). Some of these abilities may be exercised by a single administrator while others require a consensus of administrators. All editor and page restrictions may be appealed. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| {{cot|Awareness}} | |||
| When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using template. Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert, and these templates may not be placed using a ] without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee. When alerting an editor who has previously received any contentious topic alert, the template may be used, but any message that conveys the contentious topic designation is acceptable.{{efn|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.}} | |||
| If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing a designating contentious topic when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a ]) should be imposed.{{efn|Edits made before an editor was aware of a contentious topic designation may still be considered as part of a pattern of behavior in future enforcement processes if those processes primarily concern post-awareness conduct.}} Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware but may attempt to refute this presumption on appeal.{{efn|An editor who has not received an alert may also be presumed to be aware of a contentious topic if the editor: | |||
| * Was mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; | |||
| * Was ever ] or ] within the contentious topic; | |||
| * Ever ] another editor to the contentious topic; | |||
| * Ever received a discretionary sanctions alert ({{tl|ds/alert}}) for the same topic; | |||
| * Ever participated in any process relating to the contentious topic (such as a request or appeal at the ] ("AE"), the ] ("AN"), or an Arbitration Committee process page (] and subpages); | |||
| * Has placed a {{tl|Ct/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or | |||
| * Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.}} | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| {{cot|Appeals and amendments}} | |||
| All contentious topic restrictions (and ]) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. | |||
| The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: | |||
| #ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; | |||
| #request review at the ] ("AE") or at the ] ("AN"); and | |||
| #submit a ] ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by ]. | |||
| ===Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction=== | |||
| 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;{{efn|This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.}} | |||
| *The contentious topic restriction was imposed by a single administrator and it was imposed or last renewed more than a year ago; 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. | |||
| === Standard of review === | |||
| ==== On community review ==== | |||
| Uninvolved administrators at the ] ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the ] ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: | |||
| # the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), | |||
| # the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or | |||
| # the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. | |||
| ==== On Arbitration Committee review ==== | |||
| Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a ] ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: | |||
| # the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), | |||
| # the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or | |||
| # compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| {{cot|1=Amendment: Appeal timeframe}} | |||
| Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately before the "Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction" header: | |||
| {{tqq|1=A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.}} | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
Latest revision as of 19:52, 28 August 2023
U4CBC thoughts
- "sanctions" -> "remedies". We've been trying to move away from "sanctions" for some time; see User:L235/sanctions verbiage.
- A bit worried about the choice of regions. Do we know how many editors come from each region?
- This seems like a lot for a committee of 16 people to take on. In the spirit of the coordinating that the U4C is supposed to do, I will try to write up specific proposals on the ways in which the U4C can delegate its authority when appropriate, to reduce its overall caseload.
- I also suggest that the U4C's subcommittees in some cases include non-U4C members.
- The administrative support for U4C should be significant, professional, and confidential. Don't underestimate the challenge of establishing effective, e.g., CRM systems.
- Mail for the U4C should first go through a screening and organization process before directly going into the inbox of the U4C members. I recommend delegating the task of sorting mail, assigning internal tracking numbers, linking related mail, holding cases until they are ripe for decision before they go into U4C members' inboxes, etc., to trusted non-members or administrative support staff.
- Relationship between U4C and Global Council?
- The U4C should establish an advisory group among high-level editors with NDA access, similar to the role of the English Misplaced Pages functionaries with the enwiki ArbCom. Perhaps a single mailing list for members of high-level decision making bodies as defined in the charter.