< Misplaced Pages talk:Contentious topics Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:10, 11 January 2014 editNewsAndEventsGuy (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,732 edits →Logging (comments): why?← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:35, 4 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
(884 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{superseded\|the ] that was ] by the committee as a result of this consultation\|shortcut=WT:AC/DSR}}
	{{Shortcut\|WT:AC/DSR}}
			<div style="margin-top: 1em;"></div>
			{\| class="messagebox" style="background: ivory;"
			\|''Discretionary sanctions'' is a remedy used by the Arbitration Committee in final decisions regarding problematic topic areas. ] is currently used as the remedy. This was a consultation on replacing the text with ].<p>'''This final round of consultation ended on 29 March 2014.'''
			\|}
			{\| class="messagebox"
			\|style="width: 5%"\|<center>{{smallcaps\|1='''<big>29<br/>Mar</big>'''}}</center>
			\|Thank you for your comments on this final, third round of consultation about the draft new remedy. We will now implement new suggestions made here, check previous rounds of consultation for old suggestions that still need implementing, and make final copyedits to the draft. The committee will then vote on adopting the new remedy in April 2014. <small>] ]] 13:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)</small>
			\|}

	= ~~Draft~~ v1 =		= Earlier drafts =
	''Comments made during the consultation of the first draft have been archived to ]. Feel free to cite that page in comments on the second draft. ~~] ]]~~ 23:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)''		''Comments made during the consultation of the first draft have been archived to ]. Feel free to cite that page in comments on the second draft. 23:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)''

			''Earlier comments made during the consultation of the second draft have been archived to ]. Issues with the second draft that are still being discussed remain on this page. 13:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)''
	= Draft v2=

			''More comments from the second draft consultation have been archived to ]. Issues with the third draft are now being discussed on this page. 12:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)''
	===Nutshell and preamble (comments) ===
	:''']'''
	* Changed the "nutshell" text to use that suggested by {{u\|Bluerasberry\|Bluerasberry}}, which is an improvement. Thanks,  ] <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	**I would change "imposing temporary, special rules to administrators to resolve" to "'''creating''' temporary, special rules '''for''' administrators to resolve" for syntactical reasons (changes bolded).--] (]) 23:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	***Agree. {{done}}  ] <sup>]</sup> 07:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

			''Comments from the third draft consultation have been archived to ]. The consultation has ended. 29 March 2014 (UTC)''
	First sentence should read: "Discretionary sanctions are extraordinary measures for dealing with disruptive conduct within certain areas of conflict." The areas are not specified in this policy, even if the method of identifying them is. Fast-track incorrectly implies speed and haste when using discretionary sanctions, which is not always true, and is not always faster than an admin blocking under normal circumstances in an area of conflict. Additionally, "fast track" implies that normal blocks have due proccess, and they do not. "Contentious or disruptive" is a list, and lists imply that they are exclusive. Discretionary sanctions are plural - they are sanctions devised and layed down by administrators, as in "Administrators may issue discretionary sanctions."

			= Discussion of current draft =
	Second sentence should read: "Discretionary sanctions are issued by administrators after Arbitration Committee identifies a specific area of conflict and authorizes the use of discretionary sanctions in order to resolve disruption and promote civil participation. Alternative: From time to time the Arbitration Committee authorizes administrators to apply discretionary sanctions on a limited basis. The goal of discretionary sanctions is to end disruptive conduct and promote civil participation to improve Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 01:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	:I haven't seen evidence DS are temporary -- as far as I know, there's no expiration date set when they're authorized as part of a case. Have there been cases of them being removed after being in place awhile? <small>]</small> 15:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	:: I'm not aware of any situations where Sanctions as a whole had an expiration date, but I've definitely seen specific sanctions that would be set to expire after a period of time. For example, "This article is under 0RR for 1 week," or something like that. --]]] 15:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::This is why I prefer "limited". The Committee has absolute authority to limit how discretionary sanctions can be issued, and some of those limitations are standardized in this policy.--] (]) 16:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

			: '''''All current discussion has been archived, and the consultation has ended.'''''
	===Definitions (comments) ===
	:''']'''
	* The "administrator" and "enforcing administrator" paragraphs have been tweaked and merged. The requirement about having access to the tools has (hopefully) been clarified.  ] <sup>]</sup>
	* There's new definition of "sanction".  ] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	**This is a minor point and may just take up room for no helpful reason, but I can an argument (wikilawyering) about exactly what defines "editor", for example is it an IP and/or account without extra permissions (ie I'm a rollbacker not an editor). So could the first use of "editor" be linked to ] or (for stability) be defined as anyone and everyone who edits. It's a minor point and probably not required but may help avoid confusion and wikilawyering down the track. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 00:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	**Brief definition added,  ] <sup>]</sup> 07:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

	First bullet point should read "The Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (AE) is the noticeboard designated by the Arbitration Committee for requesting, applying, discussing and appealing enforcement requests, currently Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. "discussing" should be included, since adminstrators should be encouraged to discuss the sanctions.

	Second bullet point should read "An area of conflict is a set of topics specified by the Arbitration Committee when authorizing discretionary sanctions." There are many areas of conflict, set includes one.

	Fifth bullet point should read "An enforcing administrator is any administrator who imposes a discretionary sanction." Don't lay down requirements for administrators in general definitions, do it in the section specific to them. Moreover, you want it clear that all administrators are bound by the policy. By using "discretionary sanctions" the way we have, we've turned them into a term of art, so they are no longer just sanctions done under these procedures. Only sanctions done under these procedures are correct.--] (]) 01:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

	*'''area of conflict''' I'm not clear what this refers to. Is it:
	#The specified list of articles listed at ] ?
	#The "Affected areas" mentions "Pages relating to...". Other sanctions mentions "interpreted broadly". What do these mean?
	:*Another ''article'' is related somehow?
	:*A paragraph is related, in an article that isn't related?
	:*A citation is related in an sentence that isn't related?
	I think there needs to be some indication of scope, as this will differ in understanding between editors. --] (]) 10:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

	===Authorisation (comments) ===
	:''']'''
	* {{u\|NE Ent}} I've knocked out "full" in "full force" in the two places where it appears.<p>I'll post a motion to tidy up the Senkaku Islands anomaly.  ] <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	**I would change "as an Arbitration Committee motion" to "as a Committee motion" as Committee is a defined term.--] (]) 23:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	** {{done}}  ] <sup>]</sup> 12:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
	**Thx <small>]</small> 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

	===Behavioural expectations (comments) ===

	:''']'''
	* Applied {{u\|Hgilbert\|Hgilbert's}} very good suggestion.  ] <sup>]</sup> 22:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	**There should be a semi-colon instead of a comma after "best practice" in #3.--] (]) 23:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	***{{fixed}}. Thanks ]! ] ]] 23:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	*Is it possible to "comply" with all guidelines, isn't a guideline only a guide, rather than a policy?
	*What happens when policies conflict? Who decides? --] (]) 16:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	*Does "editing" refer to only the article, or can it technically refer to the edits made on a talk page while discussing the article? --] (]) 23:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	**I've vaped "and guidelines" as these are to all practical purposes covered by the best practices subsequently referred to. In any case, guidelines are never mandatory and sometimes contradictory.  ] <sup>]</sup> 07:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::And does it apply to only the editing of an article, or does it also apply to discussion on its talk page? --] (]) 11:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::Given that the area of conflict is defined as "the topic or group of topics specified" my understanding is that it could include any page not just articles and talk pages but a template or a page in the Misplaced Pages namespace as well. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 12:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::In which case, presumably different behavior problems would apply. I've not heard of anyone being sanctioned for 3RR on a talk page? --] (]) 12:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	* Along with "page restrictions" it should also mention "interaction bans" or perhaps instead of "page restrictions" just say "restrictions". --]]] 15:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	*"2. comply with all applicable policies; and 3. follow editorial and behavioural best practice"—3 seems to be unacceptably vague. What is this best practice beyond what is set out in policies? And if this was the replacement for the previous explicit mention of "guidelines", it's still too vague, allowing any teenage admin with a private agenda to define "best practice". ] ] 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

	"'''applicable policies'''" since we're not including "guidelines" and presumably "essays", what happens when editors claim, for example:
	#"POV pushing" -- there is no such policy, guideline or essay.
	#"]" -- Another essay, does this really counts for nothing?
	#"]" -- a policy, but I've seen editors claim that "has not reached consensus" to mean "against consensus". How do we demonstrate one or the other? --] (]) 10:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

	===Alerts (comments) ===
	:''']'''
	* The thrust seems to be that <ol><li>calling these "Alerts" is fine;<li> sanctioning on the basis of edit notices alone is a bad idea.</ol> The text has been tweaked accordingly.  ] <sup>]</sup> 22:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	**What's the purpose of provision 3? If an uninvolved editor provides a third-party opinion at AE thread, that makes the uninvolved editor automatically subject to AE sanctions? ] (]) 00:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	***The idea behind alerts is that, in order for an editor to be restricted, he must have been aware that the area he was editing in was under discretionary sanctions, to avoid unpleasant surprises and to make sure that users know what the consequences of their actions may be. <p>For that reason, it's superfluous to inform someone who is already aware that a given topic area is under DS (among the reasons an editor may already be aware is the fact that he has issued an alert to someone else or has participated in an AE thread about that very same area, because, by doing so, he is implicitly acknowledging the existence of discretionary sanctions). <p>Demanding that a disruptive editor be issued an alert in every case is overly bureaucratic and, as I said, superfluous. That said, however, instead of the current provision, I'd prefer something more general along the lines of "the editor in question has, through his actions, demonstrated that he is already aware that the topic area he is editing in is under discretionary sanctions", which includes other cases which may arise that we didn't foresee. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	******I've added {{u\|Salvio Giuliano\|Salvio's}} suggestion, slightly tweaked.  ] <sup>]</sup> 07:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	****I'm not asking about disruptive editors. I'm asking about uninvolved editors who just happen to provide a comment in an AE thread. ] (]) 13:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::: The only requirement for imposing a discretionary sanction is proof that the user is already aware of the existence of those sanctions in relation to the given topic area, so yes, an uninvolved editor would become subject to such sanctions from commenting on a related AE request, there is no reason to distinguish between involved and uninvolved editors in such a circumstance. Note however that an uninvolved editor has nothing to fear if he remains uninvolved - only if he later becomes involved in disputes in the topic area can he potentially be sanctioned, because by doing so he has already lost his uninvolved status. So I don't see how this provision can be regarded as discriminatory against uninvolved users in any way. I am inclined to agree with Salvio however that a more general wording such as that he proposes would be preferable, otherwise there is the possibility that users who are clearly aware of the existence of sanctions could potentially escape sanction on a technicality. ] (]) 16:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I concur.  ] <sup>]</sup> 07:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Misplaced Pages values the viewpoints of uninvolved editors because they have no vested interest in the outcome and presumably can provide object, neural input. However, if this change were to pass, uninvolved editors will be discouraged from offering their opinions because it makes them subject to sanctions without warning. Consider, for example, well...me. I, to the best of my recollection, have never been the subject of a AE request. But I do sometimes comment on requests that I am completely uninvolved with. Now, I've been on Misplaced Pages for roughly 4-5 years. Let's say that I made a comment regarding an AE thread 5 years ago and have long since forgot the details. Let's also say that I accidentally violate a 1RR restriction without even realizing it. Under the current rules, I'm allowed an honest mistake. However, if these new rules are applied, I can be sanctioned on a first offense without even realizing it. ] (]) 23:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::That's the same if rather than commenting you were warned with {{tl\|uw-sanctions}} 5 years ago, which you very easily could have forgotten about. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 07:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: Yes, you could be sanctioned in such circumstances Quest, but in the unlikely event that you were, it would almost certainly be overturned on appeal. I'm not at all persuaded that this clause poses a threat of any significance to uninvolved users. ] (]) 10:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
	*Two suggestions to include in the list <ol><li>Include in #3, ''participated in an AE appeal discussion on AN'' since appeals can take place there as well. <li>Add ''has notified another editor that discretionary sanctions are in operation for the area of conflict''. This is to avoid wikilawyering behaviour if, in a dispute for example, one party notifies the others about DS but not (obviously) themselves. Under the current wording this allows everyone but them to be sanctioned with a DS.</ol>''']''' (] • ] • ]) 00:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	::*{{u\|Callanecc\|Callanecc}} I've incorporated these points,  ] <sup>]</sup> 07:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	*The Alert (or other sufficient antecedent) should occur before the misbehavior which may lead to a sanction. It doesn't actually say that at the moment, leaving open the possibility of misbehavior-alert-sanction in that order. I don't think that is intended. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	:*Agreed, the provision should read: "... unless that editor has previously: been notified (...), been mentioned (...), participated (...)". <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	::*Perhaps this is the best spot for me to bring up a late-in-the-game question about alerts. There seems to be some disagreement among administrators and editors whether there has to be misconduct before an alert is issued. I have always thought that misconduct was not required, that the alert was just a notification to an editor who is editing in the topic area that he or she should be aware of the possibility of sanctions. Yet, ] itself says: "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways" and "Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process". Not only do these sentences indicate there has to be misconduct, but they also impose a requirement on the issuer to explain what the misconduct is, etc. And assuming there has to be "misconduct", how bad does it have to be? Enough to rise to the level of sanctions if an alert was previously issued, or just conduct that could be "better"? Finally, whatever the resolution of these questions, we should keep our nomenclature consistent. We should change the word "warning(s)" to "alert(s)".--] (]) 02:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::*Bbb23 alerted me that he had commented here. I agree that notices should not have misconduct as a prerequisite. The language of {{tl\|ArbCom-Alert}} seems to be trying to be non-accusatory and I do approve of that idea. Taking a look at what's in ] at the moment, it is full of the 'warning' terminology. If the draft we are discussing here is going to replace ] than all is good, because I think it fixes the problem. ] (]) 19:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes, it will replace the existing DS procedure.  ] <sup>]</sup> 07:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::*I agree. One thing that would help me would be to see a draft of the ''entire page'' itself rather than broken up into sections as it is here. In that way, I wouldn't have to piece together the fragments (perhaps it's just me as I'm more tired than usual). For example, in the lead of the current page there is the large box with all the bullets. I assume that box is going away completely.--] (]) 20:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

	Based on a comment on another page, it seems like we can blame this whole situation on a lawyer drawing from the legal concept of notice: actual and constructive. It might be easier to replace this whole section with "No sanction may be imposed on an editor unless that editor has been made aware that discretionary sanctions are in operation for the area of conflict or have demonstrated they are aware of of the sanctions.--] (]) 22:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
	*Minor FYI, The draft is missing a "discuss section" under the Alerts section.] (]) 16:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
	*Please provide example of #4; In legalistic technical writing, my dubious meter usually pegs at every occurrence of the word "clearly", since arguing parties so clearly reach the opposite conclusion. Based on what I know now, a "clear" invocation of #4 would involve such eggregious conduct that any one of the other control mechanisms would probably have been pulled before we need to invoke #4, and if so, that would leave #4 at play only for the "unclear" claims, i.e., the playground of battle attitudes. So from where I sit with what I know right now, we'd be better of deleting #4. Wouldn't we? ] (]) 16:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

	===Issuing alerts (comments) ===
	:''']'''
	* The stuff about edit notices has gone, and the ] in "Role of administrators has been expanded.  ] <sup>]</sup> 23:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	* Is it is technically possible (and desirable) that alerts using the official template be logged ''automatically''? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	:*A bot could do it, assuming the subst'd text of the official template contains some kind of wikilink, category, or nested non-subst template that the bot could use to locate each use of the template. —] (]) 07:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
	*Is an editor alerted (a) that there is a general DS on, for example, "Pseudoscience", and must infer the articles covered, or (b) that the article they are working on, eg. Astrology, is covered by the DS on Pseudoscience? ie. is the alert on an article by article basis, or by DS areas?--] (]) 22:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	**"Any editor may alert any other editor that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for the area of conflict."
	: This implies that ''anyone'' involved in a talk page discussion on a topic under discretionary sanctions can receive (or give) an alert, that it is about '''user conduct''' not about '''content'''. Because in the contentious area of "pseudoscience", I've seen Editors who are on the skeptical side issue alerts to only those Editors who are seeking a NPOV or are sympathetic to a subject. It seems like DS should be levied at disruptive conduct, not because of the belief system or opinions of the Editor. I am just commenting here to verify this is the case. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Liz\|Liz}}, alerts are just that, a notification ("Please be aware" etc) that special rules apply to the area of conflict. Sanctions can be applied for behavioural issues but not for purely content ones.  ] <sup>]</sup> 07:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	* In my experience, allowing any editor to "alert" another editor in a logged way isn't a good idea, as it tends to be used as an intimidation tactic ("I'm alerting you and logging it to the case page because I think your behavior is a problem, watch it!") Or in other words, in my opinion, only uninvolved administrators should do the logging to the case page. --]]] 15:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

	The content of this is fine, but the template leads to the problem Elonka has identified. Has anyone here seen those scary looking notices that are actually trying to sell you an extended warranty? This is about as bad. A simple two sentence text message would do. Such as: "hey, just so you know, there are discretionary sanctions in force in this topic area. That means any administrator can levy nearly any restriction on you, see the link for more." --] (]) 22:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

	I'm still not clear how and when alerts are issued, eg.
	#Must an alert be issued to a specific editor (on their talk page)? Or does a notice at the top of an article talk page count as the alert, that applies to all editors editing the article?
	#Is an alert issued per specific article, per topic, or does notifying an editor that there are "Discretionary sanctions" everywhere, count as sufficient? --] (]) 10:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
	#How do I know that a specific article is "related" or "interpreted broadly" before it is too late? --] (]) 10:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

	I came looking for this discussion because I saw someone "warned" recently for a trivial edit. Fix a typo, earn a warning? It's not proportionate. I haven't read everything, but overall I think that the proposals are good. I have two things to say about this particular area:
	* First, I really like the idea of calling these "alerts" rather than "warnings". Warnings have the effect of running people off and embarrassing them. Whoever came up with this idea deserves a barnstar.
	* I'd like to expand this to say that people shouldn't be warned or even "alerted" merely because they happened to edit the article once. The alerts really ought to go to people who are making multiple content edits. We ''do not'' benefit from "alerting" every single editor who happens to make a tiny edit, and I get the feeling that some people, at some articles, are "alerting" newcomers and passersby as a bit of a powertrip. We need these alerts to be provided when it matters, not on some AWB format-fixing run years before the person tries to do any serious work on the subject. (FYI, I'm not watching this page.) ] (]) 00:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
	:*{{ping\|WhatamIdoing}} The movement to "alert" rather than warning is to remove any stigma around warnings and to reduce the legalistic stance around ArbCom Enforcement warnings. However I think there is a point about "power tripping" by some users. But I disagree that ppl shouldn't be alerted for any edit - the alert is not a punishment and is just information but I agree we should address the 'gate keeping' practices by some editors--] <sup>]</sup> 09:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::I would go a step further and simply call them "notifications" as that is all that they are. They are most certainly not warnings (in the normally understood en.wp sense) and are not intended to be a badge of shame. And no, nobody should be issuing them to someone who has made a minor edit that did not change the meaning of the text. That's just silly and could serve to drive off otherwise helpful editors. Anyone who makes a habit of doing so should first be asked to stop, and if they do not should be brought to the attention of admins and/or the community for appropriate action. These are not weapons for defending your territory, they are supposed to be a ''courtesy'' to let content editors know they are on dangerous ground and to be extra careful. ] (]) 19:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::"Notification" is even better.
	::::Cailil, getting a "notification" that one false step at an article can get you blocked is, in practice, a scary thing that strongly discourages participation. IMO, the fewer pre-hint-of-any-problem "notifications" that we issue, the better. The "notification" log ought not be filled with the names of wikignomes. ] (]) 23:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Dislike''' There are competing laudable goals here (reduce power tripping/badge of shame tactics vs editor e
	::''Option-A'' Authorize DS by way of a perfunctory "Alert" just because someone stuck their toe in the water of a subject area to which DS applies. There is a litmus test we should apply to see if this is ''really'' what the community wants, and it's this .... create a bot to deliver the "alert" and lot the delivery automatically when the user's toe touches the water. In my view this is FATALLY DEFECTIVE because the community will shriek, it is really not good for editor retention, and it raises the question why we don't just put EVERYTHING under DS and be done with it.
	::''Option-B'' Same as "A", but require some ill-defined subjective "more" before alerting/logging. This is FATALLY DEFECTIVE (I think) because I don't believe we will ever be able to define the "more" well enough for a bot to do it, and if so, the question of "more" will remain amorphous so alerting/logging will be just as prone to tactical use or power tripping or bade-of-shaming as what we have now.
	::''Option-C'' Go back to Warning-For-Cause; is this fatally defective, or have we just not worked out the bugs yet? I think we should redouble efforts to improve this process. One of the positive aspects to this is that on average, a DS warning/alert/notice/whatever will arrive at a new eds talk page ''later'' in their wikipedia career, which should theoretically lessen the impact of these things on ed retention.
	Please consider improving the WARNING process instead of continuing chaos with either a brainless or subjective tepid alert process. ] (]) 12:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

	===Logging (comments) ===
	:''']'''
	*Added a provision about logged modified or overturned sanctions.  ] <sup>]</sup> 23:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

	* Since the old warnings have been replaced by non-accusatory alerts (and a good thing too), what is the purpose of requiring alerts to be logged? Previously it was useful to know that an editor had been warned about bad behavior, but now that purpose has gone away. Of course someone filing a case will still need to provide a diff proving that an alert has been issued. ''Sanctions'', on the other hand, obviously should be logged. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	:*I suggest: "All sanctions must, and alerts may, be logged ...". Logging alerts facilitates processing AE threads later, but depending on circumstances editors may not want to do it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	::*It's probably best to keep it as a bright line as failure to alert is spelled out later. Maybe this can be reviewed again after it has been in operation for a while? The logging data can also be useful for deciding whether DS for a topic can be rescinded.  ] <sup>]</sup> 08:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	:*The point of alerts in the first place is to avoid editors saying "but I didn't know there was a DS for that topic" after being sanctioned. Without alerts (or the current warning system), there's no viable way to tell an editor who really didn't know about the contentious topic area vs. an editor that is being disingenous after being disruptive in an attempt to avoid sanctions. Logging the alert is thus positive proof that the editor was indeed aware of the DS. —] (]) 08:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
	* The mention of edit notices here is unclear about what it means as it's the first mention in the document. Maybe it's an oversight from removing the other edit notices? In any case, I really don't see the point in logging the placing of an edit notice as it has no enforcement or notification role. ] (]) 08:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	** Logging alerts is good housekeeping. It has an enforcement role as people can't be sanctioned unless they're demonstrably aware of DS.  ] <sup>]</sup> 10:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
	***Yes, logging ''alerts'' is good. My comment though relates to edit notices. "While failure to log an alert, ''an edit notice'' or a sanction, does not invalidate it" (emphasis added). That is the first mention of edit notices in this draft, and (unlike in the first draft) they are not evidence of awareness. I suggest just getting rid of the text I italicised (and the preceding comma). ] (]) 10:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	*Consider omitting "... repeated failures to log may result in sanctions for the issuing editor or administrator." as rules creep. Seriously, the Arbitration Committee is going to take the time to vote on a motion for egregious misconduct of this sort? If not, who imposes the sanctions? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	**It's not rules creep. Sooner or later someone will issue alerts pointedly or disruptively; we'd may as well anticipate the day. I don't see why the AE admins can't handle this kind of stuff themselves. ArbCom doesn't need to be involved in anything.  ] <sup>]</sup> 10:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
	***I agree with Sandstein it is rules creep and should be removed. -- ] (]) 16:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
	* I don't find here a valid argument why alerts should be logged. Darkwind wrote "Logging the alert is thus positive proof that the editor was indeed aware" but it isn't anything of the sort; the editor is most unlikely to find a logged alert instead of the alert itself on its own talk page. Roger Davies also thinks that the logging makes the editor aware of the alert; it simply isn't true. The proof that an alert was issued is the diff of it; no other proof is necessary. It seems to me that logging alerts serves no useful purpose. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	::Take pity on the poor backlogged admins. The log is for their easy reference, so that they can readily verify procedures were followed prior to imposing sanctions. Also provides evidence that they acted properly if their exercising their admin authority is questioned. ] (]) 13:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	* Anyone can issue an alert, but only administrators should do the logging. I see it as a useful interim step to warn a participant that their behavior has become enough of a concern that discretionary sanctions are being considered. Logging someone's name to a case page is generally seen as a very big deal, so shouldn't be done lightly, and should only be done by administrators. --]]] 15:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	::If DS only becomes authorized after this logging, then the logging would a de facto warning, thus invalidating this converation's assumption that by fiddling with the word "alert" we are really changing anything. Instead, a "warning for cause" from an admin (via logging) would still be required, and an "alert" from a regular editor like me would be optional. Seems a lot like what we do now to me. Check my contribs, I give regular-editor head's ups about ARBCC all the time. But I don't log it. ] (]) 13:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	::: Yes, that is a sensible and rational view. However, if a notification is an actual warning, some would like them appealable. Historically though, admins have long had broad discretion is to give whatever warnings they consider necessary and, in this context, I'm not clear why DS-related warnings should be appealable when, say, 3RR or copyvio notifications aren't. I suspect that, as usual and despite ArbCom's best efforts, this will prove to be irreconciliable and ArbCom will get grief in perpetuity from whichever side feels it has lost the debate.  ] <sup>]</sup> 14:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	''I suggest bifurcating the logging section to treat alerts and sanctions differently. Also, I think "edit notices" have gone away so delete those references. Some possible text tweaks are''
	:
	<nowiki>===Logging====</nowiki>
	:
	<ins><nowiki>=====Alerts=====</nowiki>
	:
	Any editor may, at their option, log an alert in the motion authorising discretionary sanctions for the area of conflict. Such logging helps administrators who are considering imposing DS ascertain whether an editor has been given notice, but logging of alerts is not a prerequisite to discretionary sanctions.
	:
	<nowiki>=====Sanctions=====</nowiki></ins>
	:
	All <del>alerts and </del>sanctions must be logged on the page specified for this purpose in the motion authorising discretionary sanctions for the area of conflict. Whenever sanctions are modified or overturned, the administrator amending the sanction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry. While failure to log <del>an alert, an edit notice or a sanction, </del><ins>a sanction </ins>does not invalidate it, repeated failures to log may result in sanctions for the <del>issuing editor or </del><ins>sanctioning </ins>administrator.
	] (]) 17:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

	:Thank you. Though if it's entirely optional you can bet anyhthing you like that one side of a dispute will scrupulously log their opponents alerts but not their allies.  ] <sup>]</sup> 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
	::That benevolent tool known as a hammer can always be used as a weapon.... until it is simply place out of reach. If the "alert" is perfunctory, then let bots handle the issuance and logging. That way neither "side" can try to tweak someone in the nose via logging. ] (]) 17:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::Bots can't handle all the notifications; it's too complex.  ] <sup>]</sup> 19:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::I don't speak wiki, but I do speak relational database. All we need is a table of page names that are associated with each ruling, and a table of user names associated with each "notice" section (plus date if you like). If it takes too many resources to do that in real time, just process each page name in the list of all page names to find the daily edits on that one page, and just alert the new names that pop up. If something so bad happens in less than 24 hrs that waiting for the bot is not an option, then people can still do it manually. I don't see what the big bot deal is. Can you enlighten? ] (]) 19:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

	===Radical counterproposal===

	'''Radical counterproposal'''
	* Convert the alert/warning/logging/whatever into a new "probationary" status for affected subject areas;
	* Initial incident in these areas is filed at ANI just like any other subject area
	* Probation can be imposed for cause at ANI, and appealed at ANI, just like any other ANI decision (one process makes it easy)
	* Probation is logged in the ARBCOM rulings
	* DS only applies to eds who are on probation in that subject area
	PROS of this approach... removes all confusion "why did you template me" and innocent people being pissed off "I didn't do anything, get me off that log!" It uses existing procedures to establish the initial problematic behavior, instead of inventing some new and more subjective-status/subjective-procedure prior to more severe sanctioning. Anything else?

	CONS of this approach... I can't think of any, can you?
	] (]) 19:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

	:I think the big con is you're dragging everyone to ANI. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 19:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	::"Everyone" is a bit excessive, no? Today we lose editors to bullies who abuse the template/notice process but there isn't a good way to reign in those bullies. Will the ''gentler-kinder-just-as-ill-defined'' "alert" system change that? I think it will just change the nature of protests, as innocents continue to be put into DS minefields. By going to ANI we make people have the goods; If eds bring specious claims then they are eds who are likely problems in that subject area and when they get boomeranged by being put on probation that helps the subject area. On the other hand, if they have valid complaints, the offending party can hardly complain about being placed on probation. There is a built in appeal process for good faith editors who feel betrayed or wrongly accused. Compare
	::*"bring a few people when there are problems to ANI and place some of them on DS probation" to
	::*"let us put some but not all subject area eds, some of whom have transgressed and some who simply stopped by in good faith, in a subject area minefield and deny them a means to appeal their placement in that minefield"
	::The second option is a sure way to reduce editor retention, and my alternative idea only takes a few rotten apples to ANI, not "everyone" ] (])
	:::I'm sorry. To clarify by everyone I meant "everyone that is currently affected by the alert/logging system." Maybe some other noticeboard, but I'm just concerned ANI would turn the whole process into a sideshow. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 20:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::Apologies if I over-reacted. '''Clarify''' My proposal involves only a '''small percentage''' of the people now affected by the alert system - that subgroup that initially make trouble. It largely leaves well-intended/get-along type people alone - 100% of whom under the alert system can never know when they will get logged and then exposed to DS out of a nearly blue sky. That means more people can edit in contentious areas and ''still have fun''. So we make a new ANI noticeboard for probation requests. How hard can it be? ] (]) 20:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::My experience is that that the unlikeliest people have bees in their bonnets on certain topics. So how do you triage the innocent and the trublemakers?  ] <sup>]</sup> 20:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::: Option A, lump them all together if they edit subject area "X"; Option B, let the troublemakers in that subject area deal with the results of their choices as identified via existing procedures, trusting other eds in those ares to pull the levers on those existing procedures. ] (]) 20:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: That's not very clear to me. The obvious troublemakers are already dealt with, very quickly and efficiently. But how would any of this avoid the problems with, say, the ], which collapsed under the weight of the deadlocking? And what about the people whose feathers are ruffled simply by being dragged to ANI and having allegations made about them?  ] <sup>]</sup> 21:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::: I'll try again. If notice and logging is perfunctory, just from visiting an affected subject area, there will be hit-and-miss notice and logging. Some troublemakers will experience that others won't. Some innocents will be noticed/logged, and others won't. This observation ties in with the "alerts" and "issuing alerts" comments above. If there is inconsistency, then some nice people are going to experience "un-fun" and go away. Worse, some innocents who were perfunctorily noticed and logged have to now quake in their boots as they attempt to edit a contentious area because OMG they're exposed to possible DS sanctions out of the blue from an admin having a bad day. That is not a good way to try to do that triage, and it is what I meant by lumping everyone together just because they edited subject area "X". (Actually its worse if some get alerted/logged and some don't.) As for people being ruffled at ANI, (A) if they're exonerated they need to get over it because that's an essential qualification to participate in consensus process and (B) they are the type whose feathers are going to be ruffled by being alerted/logged/sanctioned-out-of-the-blue, so we haven't really avoided those ruffled feathers either way. As to your question on ], I was unaware of that history, never having been there, so I don't know. Maybe that information defeats my idea, but I can't speak to it, presently. Anyway, thanks for your followup questions and bumping this out. ] (]) 21:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::: If someone is going to quake in their boots at a non-accusatory alert, what are they doing in the rough and tumble of a wiki? If they think they are beyond reproach, what are they doing in one of the most critical environments on earth? Moreover, with '''{{NUMBEROF\|ARTICLES\|en}}''' articles to choose from, why do they need to edit the tiny handful under DS? And what, I wonder, makes you think that editing warzone articles can ever be a fun experience?  ] <sup>]</sup> 21:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::: No, the quaking is at the prospect of what comes ''next'', after alert/logging. As for "fun", it is my guess your newbie days are so far behind you that this question is better answered by listening to new editors, and asking them what they're passionate enough to try to edit? ] (]) 21:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I'd much rather have a log entry than be dragged to ANI. I feel like I"m missing the crux of your argument. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 22:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::In this concept, the ANI closing admin will, at a minimum, log a first-time offender in one of these contentious subjects as being on "DS probation". (Same as logging a "notification" in the old system or "alert" in the new proposal.) Any ed who is placed on DS Probation is then eligible for the imposition of DS if they commit a ''second'' offense in an area covered by an ARB ruling. People might still be embarrassed by a DS probation notice. I suppose they could have built in expiration times to address that. That way accidental slips can be purged from ones "record" and reformed eds can be fully redeemed with just the passage of time and good behavior. ] (]) 23:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::And this incredibly time-consuming, resource-hogging, process is intended to stop what prccisely?  ] <sup>]</sup> 00:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::I'm first to admit I don't have the experience to project how this would work ''in practice'', but on paper, it strikes me as a sensible answer to the comments I made in the ALERT and ISSUING ALERT threads above. Especially . Your mileage may vary. I think we can say Roger doesn't like it! (humor) ] (]) 00:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}} I don't know whether I like it or not; I'm still thinking it through. However, my immediate reaction is that your proposal creates greater disruption to the encyclopedia than the problem it seeks to fix.<p>To explain, DS applies to our most entrenched disputes. In the bigger ones, there are literally dozens of editors on either side of the dispute, looking to settle scores than can go back years. Even relatively in small disputes, the disputants can easily dominate any community discussion. The discussions become interminable and it becomes difficult to close them. Admins whose decisions don't suit one side or the other are hounded; their closing decisions are used as "proof" of bias where in reality none exists. ANI also has a systemic problem. While it is good at handling black and white issues; it is not so good at handling shades of grey. It either ends up deadlocked or rushing to judgment, neither of which are good.<p>So all in all, while the thrust is probably unworkable, there are things here I agree with. For instance, I do think that notifications should expire with the passage of time.  ] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
	:Thanks for thoughtful elaboration. If notifications can expire, that means they are not perfunctory just for making a single edit; rather notice would have to require "something more". What would that be? Does the "something more" requirement imply these aren't really simple "alerts" (e.g., your edits may be fine but did you know....)? The ''worst possible outcome'' of this review, in my opinion, is to tell ourselves we have resolved the meaning, implication, and process for issuing & logging alert/notice/warning/whatever when some come away thinking they say nothing about ed behavior, and others think they do. So we need to be clear and we need to apply a consistent brush to all eds. Are they perfunctory for showing up, or are they earned due to possible behavior? If they are perfunctory for showing up, and everyone knows that the connote nothing about behavior, what is gained by having them expire? ] (]) 16:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
	::There is nothing complicated or sinister about the alert idea. as you surmise, it's "Hey, your edits may be fine but did you know" ... I think they should expire after a while because it's unreasonable to expect people to remember an FYI indefinitely. I'm trying very hard to create systems that work consistently and fairly: you're the one suggesting triage into established editors and, um, "bad apples" ;)  ] <sup>]</sup> 16:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

	===Role of administrators (comments) ===
	:''']'''
	* Various tweaks:<p>Verb concordance. "Considers" > "consider". (per {{u\|Bbb23\|Bbb23}})<p>Added "acts when involved" to the "Questionable sanctions" section and changed its subheader to "Questionable administrator conduct".<p>Added vanchor template to subheads.<p>Tweaked the text about logging page restrictions, and added a bit about edit notices.<p> ] <sup>]</sup> 23:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	**In "Questionable administrator conduct", "Arbitration Committee" -> "Committee".--] (]) 23:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	*We now appear to have a situation where one editor can place a warning on another editor's page, immediately complain to a sympathetic admin, who can instantly issue a one year ban, with no discussion and no appeal. The "Community sanction noticeboard" worked in a similar fashion, except it featuring a discussion period, but it because it was unfair. There does not appear to be any due process, nor checks and balances. --] (]) 00:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	**That is incorrect on every level. ] ]] 00:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	***Except that it ''could'' still happen, just with a bit more time in between, in theory (or my reading) a user can be alerted then the next enforcement action is a site ban, leaving them banned while they try to appeal from behind the ban and block. I agree that it is '''very''' unlikely to happen, but it could. Why a ] rather than a one year block? ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 01:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	****Is there really any difference? I mean, the main difference between a block and a ban is that a ban requires consensus to be lifted, just like an AE-block (although the requirement may be slightly different, in that if a banned editor appeal to AE, then only the opinions of uninvolved administrators count towards the determination of consensus); also, an AE-ban may not exceed one year in duration, so it's actually impossible for an editor to be indefinitely banned after an AE thread. Although I agree with Thryduulf that it's probably a good idea to require that remedies be proportionate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	*****{{reply to\|Salvio giuliano}} the main difference I see is use of the user talk page. If someone is banned they can't use their talk page to do anything other than appeal if they are blocked they still can use it to discuss other things with other people. Also the sigma attached to being banned for a year is much more so than being blocked for a year. For example, we have ] but not ]. There is also the precedent of allowing one user to ban another which, at the moment, is impossible. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 01:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
	******The part about the possibility of editing one's talk page after being blocked/banned is actually controversial, at the moment. There are editors who believe that both blocked and banned editors should only be allowed to use their talk page to appeal their block; others disagree. I am not aware of anybody maintaining that blocked users can use their talk page to discuss whatever it is they want to discuss whereas banned ones can't (but it's entirely possible this has escaped my notice). So, really, the only difference is that a ban has more stigma attached to it, which is something I may agree with, but, to be entirely honest, isn't something I find particularly troubling. The end result is practically the same: the editor can't edit unless there is a consensus that he should be unblocked. So, if there are editors who feel really strongly about it, I'll not stand in the way (and will vote to change the wording), but, otherwise, this is a bit of a "meh" issue for me... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 00:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
	***Perhaps add some text that remedies are required to be proportionate. That doesn't define what is and is not proportionate, but it is a requirement against which sanctions can be explicitly judged. ] (]) 08:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	**@], could you explain how it is incorrect at every level? Are you suggesting that editors don't warn people, and uninvolved administrators can't then just ban someone? --] (]) 16:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	***{{ping\|Iantresman}} It is incorrect that administrators can ban people for no reason (which you implied) and that sanctioned editors cannot appeal (which you stated). A number of other assertions you made were also not correct. Regards, ] ]] 19:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::*@] Thank you for the clarification. It seems that an editor can alert another that an article is under DS. The alerted editor can then edit an article under DS to which the first editor takes umbrage, alerts an uninvolved admin who can immediately instigate a ban without further warning or discussion. The banned editor may even have missed the alert, and finds themselves banned without having put their side of the situation. ie. no due process, no checks and balances? --] (]) 20:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::* There are checks on the enforcement request, in the sense that administrators cannot impose sanctions for any conduct that is not disruptive. If they do, the sanctioned editor can then appeal to three different venues. If an editor fails to notice an alert ''and'' edits disruptively enough to then be sanctioned, that is nobody's fault but their own. The DS system has been used for years; "no checks and balances" has never been an issue. "I did not deserve this alert/sanction" sometimes is an issue, but the draft provides plenty of opportunity for them to make their case. ] ]] 20:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::*@] Presumably the way to completely avoid disruptive editing is to discuss proposed edits in the talk pages, and on various noticeboards first? --] (]) 22:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	*"Sanctions must be logged" is redundant to the preceding section and can be omitted. As is "Administrators are expected to log page restrictions though failure to do so does not invalidate it", but restrictions could be mentioned above as a type of sanction to be logged. Besides, "is expected" is a "should" rule, which contradicts the "must" rule in the preceding section. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	*"Any duly notified editor may be sanctioned for any repeated or serious failure to meet Misplaced Pages's behavioural expectations" should be omitted because it is redundant to the preceding section "Behavioural expectations", and has nothing to do with the role of administrators. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	*The punctuation in "Page restrictions" is inconsistent. Either commas or colons and semi-colons should be used after "may impose on any page relating to the area of conflict". ] ]] 21:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

	*The whole ''Jclemens'' case request that is on ] right now brought something to mind: I would suggest that "regularly" be removed from the "Questionable administrator conduct" section. There's no reason to handicap ArbCom in this fashion; a single instance of extremely poor decision-making should not always be pushed aside simply because it was the first such occurrence. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

	The "questionable Administrator conduct" section seems more likely to deter good conduct than bad. NuclearWarefare is correct that ArbCom needs to maintain flexibility. Overall, there are no positive standards: such as expecting administrators to be respectful, explain their decisions, communicate with other administrators, apply sober-minded judgement, and anything else. I mention these because DS is a place where adminship is a very big deal, especially given the degree to which an admins decisions are irreversible and have serious trust consequences in areas which already have a trust deficit. "Accountability" is an empty word without standards. --] (]) 02:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

	A situation just came up on AE and I think a clarification in the new draft is in order. The wording of "any uninvolved administrator may impose warnings, admonishments, editing restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, site bans of up to one year in duration" suggests that, given the degree of power and discretion administrators have, the maximum length of any measure is one year. However the same provision also allows "and/or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" which could include durations longer than a year, or running indefinitely. Same goes for the standard enforcement mechanisms. Is this a feature, or a bug? If the 1 year is meant to be a hard cap, it should be written so.--] (]) 21:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

	:I now notice, too, that the wording of the provision "... warnings, admonishments, editing restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, site bans of up to one year in duration ..." should be reconsidered. Admonishments aren't sanctions (and I find them patronizing and insulting; they should be omitted), but blocks as the most common type of sanction aren't mentioned. Is it really the intent to limit e.g. topic bans to a duration of one year? Indefinite topic bans are now relatively common at AE, and haven't to my knowledge caused any particular problems. In general, I prefer sanctions that are not limited in time to sanctions that are, because timed sanctions encourage a punitive approach rather than a preventative one - a sanction should end when it is no longer needed (e.g. after a convincing appeal), not when an arbitrary amount of days has elapsed. I therefore recommend to edit the provision to mention blocks, omit admonishments, and remove the one-year limit. That would also resolve the ambiguity perceived by Tznkai. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
	::I would be fine with that with a stronger appeal process, and/r weaker overturn protection and/or higher admin conduct standards or other devices to counteract the first and harshest mover incentives. Otherwise, there are no real constraints on a single administrator being punitive, or for sanctions to slide into severity without anyone even trying to do so.--22:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::Sandstein wrote above 'I prefer sanctions that are not limited in time to sanctions that are'. I find that comment disturbing, as it runs counter to the entire Western system of justice. Indefinite sentences in the Western justice system are a rarity. Why should Misplaced Pages specialize in them? The same goes for sanctions 'broadly construed'. The entire Western justice system runs on sentences which are very strictly defined. It seems to me Misplaced Pages is going in the wrong direction on these two points, and that the premises should be re-examined. It's also very administratively time-consuming to deal with appeals on both these issues, and appeals arise much less frequently by definition when sanctions have time limits and when sanctions are not broadly construed. ] (]) 15:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::Nina Green, we are not operating a criminal justice system that issues punishments to evildoers. We are, if we must use legal analogies, operating a system of ] that should result in measures tailored to prevent conflict that hinders work on the encyclopedia. I am guided by the principle of our policy ] that "blocks should not be punitive". Neither should other sanctions. They should be aimed at preventing conduct that is deemed unhelpful. And they should last exactly as long as they are needed for that purpose. This means that even a block for the most egregious misconduct should be lifted after a day if we receive credible assurances that the misconduct will not reoccur, but it also means that a sanction for very minor misconduct should last indefinitely if we must assume that the same conduct will be repeated if the sanction is lifted. There is one practical advantage to timed sanctions – they do not need to be actively reviewed to expire. This makes them suitable for first sanctions or very routine situations such as edit-warring, but every subsequent sanction should, in my opinion, require affirmative action to lift following discussion with the user at issue. For the purpose of this policy, setting a upper limit of one year may have the detrimental effect of inducing admins to think in terms of timed sanctions only and therefore in terms of punishment rather than prevention. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Sandstein, no justice system in the Western world, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, uses indefinite sentences or sentences 'broadly construed'. The essence of the Western justice system is that nothing is left to the 'interpretation' of those administering the sentences. Misplaced Pages has lost sight of that principle. And it's also important to keep in mind the point I have brought up several times, and which has never been answered (see this page and the earlier archived discussion), namely that the purpose of an arbitration is to clear the decks of 'troublemakers', and once those decks are cleared by the arbitration, there should be no troublemakers left, so why are discretionary sanctions then imposed on a topic? The only answer can be, 'Well, the arbitrators are anticipating trouble in the future from some as-yet-unidentified trouble-makers'. Again, the entire Western justice system is based on punishment of offenders. Sentences are never imposed in the likelihood that someone will offend in future. Misplaced Pages again runs counter to the principles of our Western justice system, and the outside world would find that peculiar, if not downright offensive, if it were aware of it. ] (]) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Nina, Sandstein is entirely correct that we're not in the justice business here, and I'm afraid you're describing a conception of "Western justice" that does not mach up with reality or theory. If I can wander into some theories of justice for a moment, the distinction that Misplaced Pages makes between punishment and prevention is a little bit nonsensical, since we accept deterrence as prevention. What we really seem to mean is that our use of blocks is not . For that reason, I don't see why more than "a day" is anything but entirely arbitrary amount of time to declare blocks punitive, when the measure is actually "about as long as we think it'll take." The advantages to time limits are prophylactic and pragmatic: no administrator has an assigned beat, no bureaucracy exists to transfer responsibility, no structured hierarchy exists to funnel action into unified policy or control authorized agents. There are many, many ways that a sanctioned user can get lost in the shuffle, or simply get an unintended message of rejection and denunciation, despite any of our protestations otherwise. For all of these reasons I think it is better to have the onus on administrators to renew sanctions than otherwise, but there are other ways of addressing that concern.--] (]) 16:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Tznkai wrote 'Nina, Sandstein is entirely correct that we're not in the justice business here'. That's absolutely wrong, both in terms of the reality of what happens on Misplaced Pages and in terms of how the outside world would see it. I know it's enormously difficult to change things once people have gone down a certain path and have come to see things in a certain way, and Misplaced Pages seems always at great pains to state that it's 'not in the justice business' and that arbitrations are not trials, and therefore no elementary rules of justice apply, but the reality is that an arbitration is a trial, whatever Wikipedians choose to call it, and the result of an arbitration is the passing of sentence, whatever Wikipedians choose to call it, and it all runs counter to the principles of the Western justice system. The 'fix' is a very simple one, and would greatly reduce the administrative workload on Misplaced Pages, so fixing the problem and bringing Misplaced Pages policies into line with the principles of the Western justice system would be a 'win-win' situation. ] (]) 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Nina, to a certain degree, how the outside world looks at us is also not our business, but let me focus on the rest of what you have to say. The fix is incredibly difficult. You've been talking about "elementary rules of justice" as if they were a culturaly neutral, reasonably universal, easy to implement, self evident set of assumptions and practices. They are not. Actual justice systems are incredibly complex, imperfect, reliant on submerged cultural assumptions and habits, and perhaps most importantly, paid professionals. To seriously integrate justice into what we do would be catastrophic, for we would have all of the disadvantages of a justice system and absolutely none of the advantages and resources those systems bring to bare. Misplaced Pages is not a sovereign authority. It does not govern people. It is a website. Insofar as possible, expecting just conduct is good, expecting production of justice is a nightmare. I am on my very best days here, a wise-enough, lucky-enough man. I have never achieved the philosopher-king zen required to promulgate justice.--] (]) 17:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Tznkai, if Misplaced Pages raises funds from the public, which it does, 'how the outside world looks at Misplaced Pages' is our business, both from the point of view of encouraging the public to donate to an institution which it considers to be properly run, and from the point of view of Misplaced Pages's integrity in requesting the public to donate. Re your second point: it would be entirely impractical (i.e. insane) to try to import the entire criminal justice procedure, or civil law procedure, or administrative law procedure into Misplaced Pages. But that's not at all what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting a few easy 'fixes' which would go a long way toward altering public perception of the Misplaced Pages arbitration and sanctions system if the public ever happens to have a look at it, and which would drastically reduce administrative workload on Misplaced Pages. What's wrong with that? It sounds like a win-win situation to me. ] (]) 17:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I don't think the general public knows or cares to know much about our inner workings. I am concerned with new editor recruitment and retention, but that I think is more of a problem of newbie biting and our arcane just complex enough to alienate and not strong enough to do anything useful sour spot of a bureaucracy sucking all of the fun and satisfaction out of a hobby. Implementing the so called simple fixes - of which I am not exactly sure you refer, would make that problem worse with no appreciable gain. Encouraging people to further think of themselves as wronged parties will just encourage editors to treat administrator decisions as ], again, bringing us the difficulties of a court without the advantages. For practical reasons aforementioned, I think broad construction and indefinite sanction can bring trouble as well, but thinking in terms of justice, or worse, "Western justice" a frame that will lead rather quickly to error. The tl;dr is this: editors care about getting fair shake and good experience, and we should do our best to give them one, but implementing the due process from justice systems would make that problem worse not better.--] (]) 17:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Since you admit you don't know what specific 'fixes' I'm speaking off, why go off on tangents about what you ''think'' I'm speaking of with statements such as 'Encouraging people to further think of themselves as wronged parties'? Who said any such thing? ] (]) 18:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I'll set out the specific 'fixes' in a new section below to clarify. ] (]) 20:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

	===Reducing or overturning sanctions (comments) ===
	:''']'''
	* The WP:AN section is now back to how it currently is. Much more to the point, it now occurs to me that the process for reducing or overturning sanctions is effectively the same as for an appeal. Easiest is probably to fold them into one. Thoughts?  ] <sup>]</sup> 23:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	**You're probably tired of me saying this: "Arbitration Committee" -> "Committee".--] (]) 23:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	**Yes, the two sections should be combined.--] (]) 00:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	**The two items should start lowercase for consistency and because the items are sentence fragments, although item #2 muddies things by having a fragment followed by a complete sentence. You could cheat a bit by putting the sentence in parentheses. The first item should have a semi-colon before "or" for consistency with the other longer lists of this kind.--] (]) 00:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	*I would prefer to see "the status quo prevails" (in Reducing, and below in Appeals) be phrased more clearly in the policy. In the past the community has had disagreements about whether, when consensus is unclear about something, "status quo" refers to "the state before the sanction (status quo ante)" or "the current state". Yes, you could argue that if you meant "status quo ante" you'd say that, but I rather think it would just be easier and cause less argument later on to say "if consensus is unclear, the sanction stands", which is what (I think?) you actually mean. ] (]) 01:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	*As in the previous round, I recommend striking "(b) uninvolved editors at the Administrators' noticeboard" for practical reasons. In controversial cases attracting many commentators, figuring out who is uninvolved will be very difficult at best, and can provide fodder for endless wikilawyering. Besides, the provision doesn't tell us what "uninvolved" means in this context (unlike for administrators, we don't have a policy defining uninvolvedness for non-admins). Are people who edit in the same topic area with the same or the opposite point of view as the sanctioned editor uninvolved? Good luck figuring that out in the calm and collegial climate that we all know prevails in noticeboard discussions. This appeals provision is a recipe for paralysis and endless additional conflict. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	*And yes, the sections "Reducing or overturning sanctions" and "Appeals" should be merged. Also, you should consider merging this part of the rules with ], because it makes little sense to have separate sets of rules for appealing DS and non-DS AE actions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	*As I have commented elsewhere on this page, this provision combined with others creates a first and most severe mover problem. ] had some choice words for the situation that I endorse again, ], "it is a bit like the sheriff of an old west town coming into the bar and throwing some loaded handguns on the table". Relying on the community or a clear consensus of AE administrators is dubious protection. Disputes for which discretionary sanctions are authorized are almost by definition areas with contentious edit warriors full of passion. Separately, even here, Misplaced Pages should err on the side of restricting less, not restricting more. The underlying conceit of nearly all of Misplaced Pages's norms and procedures, maybe the very structure itself, is that anyone can edit, '''because all mistakes and errors can be undone.''' This provision not only turns that assumption on its head, it flouts it by protecting a class of administrative action.--] (]) 01:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	* Not sure if it should be in this section or another one, but there should be something somewhere to cover the situation of multiple administrators active in the same topic area. For example, if there are three administrators monitoring an article, and one administrator tells an editor, "Don't do that again or I'm imposing a sanction," but then a second administrator comes in and imposes a sanction without discussing it with the first admin (effectively undermining them). Another potential situation is where an administrator imposes an indefinite revert restriction on a certain section of the article, and then their attention turns to other areas of the project. If a second administrator then becomes more active in monitoring the article, how much authority do they have to deal with "old" sanctions from an administrator who hasn't been around for several months? A note to the previous admin's talkpage may be a good idea, but if there's no timely response, do they have to go through the step of a ] appeal, or can they just proceed with their best judgment? Perhaps an addition to this section might be: "If the original enforcing administrator has been inactive on monitoring a particular dispute for 90 days or more, and is not responding in a timely manner on their talkpage, another active administrator may make reasonable adjustments to sanctions. If, however, the original administrator returns and disagrees, administrators are expected to engage in civil discussion (modeling the correct way to handle disputes) as to how to proceed." --]]] 15:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

	===Appeals (comments) ===
	:''']'''
	* I've brought the language for this more or less in line with the language for modifying or overturning,preparatory to merging the two sections,  ] <sup>]</sup> 23:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
	**There should be a colon after " three possible stages for appeal". I don't see the need for "and/or" in item #1; "or" would be fine. Each instance of "Arbitration Committee" should be changed to "Committee" and no wikilink.--] (]) 00:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	***Overall - Can we safely assume that this only applies to formal appeals? IOW, continued discussions are allowed on the admin's talk page? For example, if an admin sanctions an editor, it's permissible for an editor to say, "''Hey, I think you make a mistake. How about X?''" ] (]) 00:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	***Regarding provision 3, why is a consensus of ArbCom members required when it doesn't take a consensus to impose the sanction? This is a whole sale departure from current practice, correct? ] (]) 00:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	****Regarding provision 3, this was already fixed by me and NuclearWarfare in the previous draft. How did it get back into the article? Were any other changes lost? ] (]) 18:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	*****{{ping\|Bbb23}} This was already discussed and fixed. with draft 1 and as you can see, I started a second discussion above. Can you please self-revert? ] (]) 20:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	****** Fixed? There was nothing broken. I don't agree with that change, so I was bold and took it out. It adds a lot of work and bureaucracy. Determining consensus is easy, whereas "a majority etc" requires a formal vote. Formal votes are usually unnecessary, and add delay and inconvenience. There is no point in a formal vote if the appeal doesn't have any support.  ] <sup>]</sup> 20:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	*******{{ping\|Roger Davies}} Wait a second, let me see if I have this straight. You disagree with the current policy and practice (AKA ]). When this issue came up for discussion, you declined to participate in the discussion and allowed existing consensus to stand. You decided to keep silent and quietly changed policy without bothering to mention it to anyone? Honestly, I don't know how you edit Misplaced Pages, Roger, but when I attempt to make contentious changes, I don't try to quietly make them and hope nobody notices. Instead, I try to be as open and transparent as possible. I don't try to hide my edits. In fact, I do the exact opposite: I start discussions on the talk page to ''bring attention'' to the change to make sure that everyone is on board. I'm really taken aback that you would attempt to make a major change to policy apparently without even bothering to mention it. In any case, you boldly changed existing policy. If you want to change consensus, the burden is on you to change that consensus. ] (]) 23:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	******** What consensus, {{u\|AQFK}}? . When I walked through the changes of that page one by one to arrive at the current draft, I reached the same conclusion as him.  ] <sup>]</sup> 05:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
	* Either as part 3 or subpart 2(c): "Approval of the Committee". (I.e. arbcom may authorize an admin to modify a sanction)
	I still don't see the need for three separate stages of appeal - the appellant should have the choice of appealing either to AE, AN or ARBCOM, not ''both'' AE/AN and if that fails, to ARBCOM. It's highly unlikely that there are any facts worthy of further consideration after a user has already been sanctioned either by an admin or from an AE request, had his appeal turned down by the sanctioning admin, and then had a further appeal rejected at AE or AN. Moreoever, the provision for appeal first to AN and then ARBCOM raises the possibility of drama between the community and ARBCOM. ] (]) 06:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	**The way this is supposed to be, in my opinion, is that a sanctioned editor has the following three separate possibilities to appeal a sanction: in this order, a. to the imposing admin, b. either to AE or to AN and, finally, c. to ArbCom. It's not possible for an editor to first appeal a sanction before ArbCom and then to AE/AN and neither should it be possible to appeal to AN and then to AE or vice versa. Also, it's probably a good idea to say that an appeal to the community is not required to appeal to ArbCom, i.e. that a person can appeal directly to the committee, if he so wishes (which is technically known as an appeal ''per saltum''), although, if we turn him down, he then can't go ask the community. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	::: Yes, that is how I understand the appeals process, though I probably failed to make that clear in my previous post. My concern is that allowing three separate appeals is excessive, and also that allowing someone to appeal first to AN and then if that fails to ARBCOM raises the possibility of wikidrama between the community and ARBCOM in any situation where ARBCOM decides to overturn the result of the AN appeal. ] (]) 11:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::Well, an appeal to the admin who imposed the restriction in the first place is not mandatory, but it should be included: every admin has the authority to undo his own actions and if he realises he made an error, to allow him to self-revert is IMHO the best option (it's a quick and unbureaucratic process and it also gives the opportunity to the imposing admin to demonstrate he's ready to change his mind and recognise he may have been wrong, which is a good thing). <p>Also, the appeal to ArbCom is necessary as well, in that admins imposing discretionary sanctions are exercising a power we delegated them and, so, we need to retain the authority to ascertain if said power is being exercised in a reasonable manner. <p>This leaves the two alternative appeals to the community and, as far as those are concerned, I guess it's a matter of personal preference: in my opinion, the community is already marginalised when it comes to DS and I'd rather we did not entirely exclude them from DS. If they somehow mess up, ArbCom may, as an ''extrema ratio'', overturn their decision (just as we, theoretically, may lift a sanction imposed by them), which, it's true, may cause drama. Then again, most of what ArbCom does lately seems to cause drama... And I don't think that the risk of creating drama is so high as to really justify disfranchising the community when DS are concerned... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 14:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::: I agree that appellants should have the option of appealing to Arbcom, I just don't see why they should have a right to ''three'' appeals, firstly to the sanctioning admin, secondly to AN/AE, and thirdly to Arbcom - IMO, they should choose between AN, AE or Arbcom for their second appeal with no right to a third appeal if the second fails. All a third appeal is likely to achieve is to allow disruptive editors to create more wikidrama. ] (]) 11:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::{{ping\|Gatoclass}} the first reason why we should grant three different venues is that appeals are not always merely in the interest of the sanctioned party; they can also be in the interest of the entire project. Assume that an editor was rightly restricted for disruption; he appeals to AN and the only people who show up are those who agree with him or have long worked with him and they all support overturning the sanction. In this case, it would be appropriate for the imposing admin or for the editor who started the original AE thread to appeal the community's decision and ask that ArbCom set it aside. But, also, we have to bear in mind that, sometimes, an AN discussion can degenerate into a mob and in that situation as well ArbCom needs to intervene to make sure that the appellant is treated fairly. <p> I agree that ArbCom need to take into consideration the fact that the community has already expressed an opinion and should be careful to only revert it when fairness demands it, but it still necessary IMHO to provide for such an eventuality. After all, ArbCom has the power to speedily decline to hear a case... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 11:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: Well, I don't really see why users should be permitted to appeal to AN at all - IMO, they should be given a choice between AE and Arbcom and that's it. But, I've had my say on this and see no point in repeating myself, so I'll drop the matter now. Thankyou for taking the time to respond. ] (]) 12:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

	*Appeals do not seem proportionate, in that one person can ban an editor for a year, but you have to jump through hoops to appeal. --] (]) 16:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	:*And the sanctioning admin is expected to participate in this hoop-jumping by explaining their actions in public. That's a deterrent against frivolous or thoughtless sanctions, apart from the possibility of being sanctioned for such. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	::*A process which the banned editor is not part of. What form of justice excludes the condemned from taking part in their own defence? The principal of ] is an important safeguard. --] (]) 20:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::Ian, while much of what you say is technically true, it does not happen in practice. Part of that is because of the faith and trust given to admins to not be... Well, dicks. I don't think you will find an AE report where the admins didn't at least give the accused a right of responce. As for the solo rogue admin handing out bans, it is rare for an admin to not wait for a second admin opinion before acting. Usually even then it is because so few admins volunteer for the AE hassle. About the only one I can think of that comes close to the cowboy law you describe is Marshal20 being blocked for a month by Sandstien. Even that was overturned, by Sandstien, after a civil discussion on his talk page... Not some Kafkaesque appeal maze. I believe that your concerns, that I admit are technically true, are more alarmist than prudent. ] (]) 23:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I can only go by my own DS case, where I feel this was not the case, which was applied to an article that was not under DS, and an article I was not even editing, and following to the letter, recommendations to "adopt Misplaced Pages’s communal approaches". This is why I'm trying to get clarification, and checks and balances.--] (]) 00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: I agree that the wording of discretionary sanctions could use some improvement with regard to scope; many DS cases refer to ''articles'' covered by the topic area rather than ''edits''. IMO it should be made clearer that any ''edit'' pertaining to the topic area, whether on a related page or not, comes under the scope of DS. The existing wording has caused confusion in the past and will probably continue to do so until the problem is addressed. ] (]) 11:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::That does indeed speak volumes about your motivation. Perhaps you should look into how other cases were handled from a less intimate view before tarring them all with the same brush. ] (]) 20:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::My motivation is to make sure that no-one else goes through the same thing. It has no bearing on my case which has been and gone. --] (]) 22:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
	*"is no longer an administrator and/or has relinquished the tools" means the same thing, does it not? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
	**The wording does seem unnecessary—omit "and/or has relinquished the tools". ] (]) 06:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
	***I think this is intended to address cases where the admin has voluntarily given up their tools not under a cloud. In the past, people in the circumstance of "not holding any bits, but could have them back with no trouble if they asked" have been seen to have a confused sort of "still basically an admin, just no buttons" status. So I would guess Arbcom is trying to make sure that people in that situation are covered under this wording even according to people who view them as still-admins. Possibly a better way to do this would be to say "does not currently have administrator tools" or something, which would encompass both people who have had their bits pulled and people who have given them up, temporarily or otherwise? ] (]) 15:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
	*The introduction "There are three possible stages for appeal" may cause confusion. Either mandate that an editor must use option 1 before 2, and 2 before 3, or change "stages" to "options". Clearly options 1 and 2 ''should'' be used before 3—perhaps say something like "There are three options for an appeal which should occur in the following order". ] (]) 06:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
	*AQFK has changed "where a consensus of arbitrators is required to overturn the decision" to "where a majority of active, non-recused of arbitrators is required to overturn the decision". Why? Is there a serious suggestion that three rogue arbs may arrange to hold a quick discussion and declare that User:VeryBadEditor is unbanned while the good arbs are asleep? There is no formal vote in options 1 or 2, so why does option 3 need one? ] (]) 06:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

	*This a bit of a technical point but given that the processes for appeal at AN are radically different from AE has closure of such AN appeals been thought through? For instance if at AN an appeal is granted by uninvolved editors and a sysop enacts that, ''but'' on review ArbCom determines that that action/appeal breached policy, well then who is accountable - the sysop who enacts consensus at AN or the !voters at AN? <br>And there again if appeals are "granted" improperly at AN but no sysop will enact them - the the system implodes. For clarity we know that if an improper decision is made at AE by a sysop then that sysop carries the can. <br>I mentioned this at the last draft, but it bears repetition, unless there is some level of structure & accountability at AN for editors granting appeals, comparable to that of sysops at AE, then the AN appeal system are in a limbo. As Sandstein points out above the accountability of sysops under AC/DS keeps things in order. If we eliminate accountability we open up a can of worms. And ultimately the person who suffers from that limbic state is the appellant. We also run the risk of facilitating "admin shopping". <br>To be clear I'm not arguing against AN appeals I'm just suggesting we formalize it--] <sup>]</sup> 13:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
	**In my opinion, non-admins should not close anything requiring the use of tools, which means that IMHO a non-admin may decline an appeal (although he should only do so when it's entirely uncontroversial), but should never grant one. I also add that, as far as I'm concerned, an admin acting in good faith should not be sanctioned even if ArbCom later determines that he was wrong in his determination of consensus and, so, decides to overturn his decision... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 01:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
	*DS, under these guidelines, could result in an editor either being blocked or site banned for up to a year. Should some guidance be added for this, i.e., a blocked user may post an appeal on their talk page and request that someone copy it to the appropriate venue, and a site banned user should email BASC? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
	**Yes. Though technically arbitration/AE appeals go to the full committee, not BASC (which only handles appeals of community sanctions).  ] <sup>]</sup> 10:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

	=== Continuity (comments) ===
	:''']'''
	* Apart from "full force" > "force", not a lot,  ] <sup>]</sup> 23:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

	===Moving forward===

	The idea now is to check the new draft for typos and sillinesses, probably consolidate the overturning and appeal sections, itemise the procedures it supersedes, then get a motion up for voting,  ] <sup>]</sup> 23:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

	;Pages which will need to be updated or are superseded
	*]
	*]
	*] has done a pretty good job with ]
	**Though the ] has dropped off the lists. Given (according to the log on that case page they've never been used so could probably be gotten rid of as opposed to making them the standard version.
	*] - update to include possibility of page restrictions.

	That's all I can think of at the moment anyone should feel free to add to it. The list will be useful for the clerks when we enact and implement this motion, so please add any pages/sections I've missed. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 08:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
	: Thanks for the list. That's very helpful. There are a couple of existing procedures that these will supersede. I probably need to collate them them, unless others get to it first.<p>The Senkaku Anomaly hasn't quite dropped off the face of the earth. I drafted two very simple housekeeping motions and have them ready to roll on this. One authorises DS; the other rescinds the remedy. Either way, the anomaly is resolved.<p> I'm aiming to start reviewing this tomorrow, to move it towards a vote.  ] <sup>]</sup> 17:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
	:: A number of templates will need to be updated, especially now that a clearer distinction is made between ''individual sanctions'' and ''page restrictions'', but that can come later. ] ]] 21:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
	* I suggest we put a line into "Role of administrators" about sysops not amending any sanction, then merge the Overturning and Appeals sections. ] ]] 21:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
	**I was just going to the appeal merge initially (and indeed have done this) but it probably less cumbersome if I try to reconcile all the proposals with the current draft. I'll post this in its entirety tomorrow for discussion, as I've run out of working day now.  ] <sup>]</sup> 17:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

	After all this discussion, we still don't seem to have resolved one of the questions that triggered the rewrite in the first place, which is, should warnings be considered a sanction and thus appealable, or not? I have argued that warnings should be appealable, but it would be nice to have a clarification of this point before a new draft is adopted.

	BTW, there is still another issue originally raised which doesn't seem to have been addressed, which is in what circumstances will an administrator involved in imposing a sanction be permitted, or not permitted, to participate in an appeal of that sanction? Admittedly this is not necessarily an easy issue to resolve, but it would have been nice to see at least ''some'' discussion of it. ] (]) 11:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

	:{{reply\|Gatoclass}} Thanks for your comments, Gatoclass. On the first point here, the consensus view is that "warnings" phrased as though the editor is about to be sanctioned are in themselves sanctions and could theoretically be appealable. "Alerts" that draw the user's attention to the existence of discretionary sanctions are not sanctions – merely points of information – and cannot be appealed. We are therefore changing the system to make alerts, not warnings, the usual prerequisite of discretionary sanctions being issued. On the second point, administrators are disqualified from voting in appeals of their own actions; in all areas of the project, they can only comment as "the blocking administrator". Obvious this applies to AE and DS appeals too. Do you think further discussion or an attempt to change this status quo is needed, or were you trying to say we should codify this status quo in the draft? ] ]] 12:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

	:: I'm happy with the new alert system, and agree it eliminates many of the problems we've had up to now. But I don't think it answers the question of whether warnings, specifically, are appealable. Many AE cases, for example, result in warnings for the parties, and sometimes admins will issue warnings under DS unilaterally, my understanding is that in either case these will now be treated as sanctions and therefore appealable, but I'm concerned that if this issue is not clarified, we will be back to clarifications and amendments before long trying to resolve the matter again.
	:: With regard to who can participate in an appeal, I think there is agreement that the admin imposing the sanction should not adjudicate the appeal, but what about other admins who, for example, supported the imposed sanction in the original request, are they likely to find that they made a mistake in the appeal, and if not, should they also be disallowed from adjudicating the appeal? And what about admins who opposed the original sanction, should they be permitted to adjudicate the appeal or not?
	:: Admittedly some of these questions are not easy to resolve, but I'd still like to see some discussion about them. ] (]) 12:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::Warnings (as a low-level sanction) will logically be appealable because, to warn, the issuer has had to make a ] about the warned editor. This will probably make things easier to resolve than the current regime involving warnings.<p>The second issue you raise is I think covered by the text in the ]: {{xt\|prior routine enforcement interactions and prior participation in enforcement discussions do not constitute involvement and are not usually grounds for recusal}}". Ultimately, this all comes down, I suppose, to what the admin had to say for him/herself earlier and what they have to say in the appeal, and indeed how they say it. This things are easier recognised that described ;)  ] <sup>]</sup> 17:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::: Okay, I'm fine with that interpretation of warnings (though I'm still mulling over whether or not to make a further proposal regarding their use). As for the second issue, I couldn't accept the text to which you refer as sufficient - at the very least, I think it should be made clear that the administrator imposing the original sanction cannot participate in the adjudication of the appeal. For other admins, you may be correct in suggesting that participation be left to discretion, on the basis that it would be difficult to draft a firm rule, but IMO it wouldn't hurt to add something to the draft about exercising such discretion. ] (]) 07:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::: If it helps, warnings are already included in the ], which can be pointed to in time of need.<p>On the appeal issue, I'm not entirely happy with the current wording about the enforcing administrator either. We could do worse than slightly tweaking the words you use ("administrator imposing the original sanction cannot participate in the adjudication of the appeal") and combining it with a policy. For instance, {{xt\|The enforcing administrator is ] and expected to provide explanations at any appeal. They may not however participate in the adjudication of it.}}. Does this, or something similar, work for you?  ] <sup>]</sup> 09:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: I can get this shorter: {{xt\|The enforcing administrator is ] at any appeal but may not however participate in the adjudication of it.}}.  ] <sup>]</sup> 09:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: That looks okay for the enforcing admin, but a word or two of advice for other admins participating in the original discussion that led to the sanction might also be helpful. Perhaps I'll give some more thought to it. ] (]) 11:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I agree. In my opinion, the admins who participated in the original AE thread should not be allowed to adjudicate a hypothetical appeal, because they have already made up their minds, which conflicts with the basic idea of what an appeal is. I know that I'm in the minority thinking this, but I agree that we should add a word or two of advice for them. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 12:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::: Theoretically they shouldn't participate in the appeal, but there are so few admins active at AE that it may simply be impractical to restrict them all. Also, it could open the system to gaming, as admins could overturn a sanction simply by holding their fire until the appeal. So I think there are valid arguments on both sides, which makes it difficult to compose a practical guideline. Perhaps a general statement of principle might be possible though. ] (]) 12:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::: My view is that administrators should only be disqualified from hearing subsequent appeals if they put their name to the sanction being appealed (or they are involved). ] ]] 12:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::: By "putting their name to the sanction" I assume you mean, agreeing that the sanction is appropriate. I've considered that possibility myself, however, it seems to me that would allow ''opponents'' of the sanction a free hand at any subsequent appeal. ] (]) 13:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: I actually meant they put the sanction into effect (i.e. signed the log on the case page), not that they merely said it's justified. ] ]] 16:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: Okay, thanks for the clarification. That would certainly be an easily interpreted "bright line" rule, but I'm still not sure that leaving the restriction so narrow would be entirely fair to the appellant. ] (]) 11:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

	*The provisions authorizing discretionary sanctions in the individual cases will also need to be reviewed and harmonized. For example, ] says that "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning", which conflicts with the new provisions that call for "alerts" rather than "warnings". <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

	===Restricting admin actions===

	Just to highlight a small but important proposed change, which needs discussion. Earlier versions have enabled admins to increase sanctions of their own volition but not to decrease them or overturn them. It strikes me that ALL admin intervention should be subject to the same rules. This would not prevent an admin increasing a sanction if fresh misconduct takes place but would prevent increasing a block unilaterally from say a week to a month without going through the process. Thoughts?  ] <sup>]</sup> 09:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

	:Shouldn't all sanctions (block and topic bans) be based on a set escalating scale. ie. The first sanction is always 1 week, then the next infringement would be 2 weeks, then 1, 3, 6, months, and finally a year. There currently seems to be no rationale for the duration set by admins.
	:Shouldn't the same duration be applied to both blocks and topic bans? It seem inconsistent that a block of up to one year can be set, but topic bans can be indefinite. This would probably reduce the number of appeals. --] (]) 11:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

	::@Iantresman, short answer 'no'. Long answer: the reason AC/DS is discretionary is because the action required may need to use the sysop's best judgement. If the system only used the normal 1 week 2 week, 1 month, 3 months, escalation cycle then it wouldn't be discretionary. <p>@Roger: I see where you're coming from but for clarity this applies to sysop escalating sanctions imposed by other admins - not their own. Or would you see the need for that with sysops increasing their own sanctions. Either way there is a layer of added bureaucracy here (but I see your point). <p>The problem here from my POV is that a second sysop's actions could legitimately be described as a new and individual sanction under AC/DS as opposed to a tweak/alteration of another admin's action, and requiring sysops to go to AE for approval (when in most cases it'd merely be a rubber stamping excercise) this would have the unintended consequence of wasting time--] <sup>]</sup> 17:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
	:::@Cailil. I would argue that the giving of a sanction is the discretionary bit, and doesn't have to apply to the duration. There is also a good argument that one admin shouldn't be judge, jury and executioner for hopefully obvious reasons. Since the option is available, I can't see why we wouldn't want to take it, in order to maximise transparency and accountability. --] (]) 17:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

	{{ping\|Roger Davies}} In which situation could this be a problem? I can imagine situations where a user is given a brief block, then continues ranting on their talk page or offwiki in the vein of "just you wait until the block expires, then I'll show these dirty Syldavians", which makes the blocking admin (or another admin) decide that a longer duration is preventatively needed. This wouldn't be a problem with a normal block, so why would it be in this context? And what does "going through the process" mean? There isn't much of a process for discretionary sanctions; they may be imposed without prior discussion. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
	:I think that situation would be covered under Roger's comment that it "would not prevent an admin increasing a sanction if fresh misconduct takes place". Only if one admin were to block for say 2 days then another comes along (and the blocked user hasn't done anything anywhere) and unilaterally makes it a one year ban under the protection of DS. So likewise I assume this means that if an admin semi-protects a page under DS then autoconfirmed accounts continue to disrupt that that admin is free to upgrade protection to full '''but''' would be unable to extend the semi or lower it to PC? <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|Sandstein}} Generally speaking, in a situation where an administrator thought another administrator's enforcement decision too lenient, and unilaterally increased its severity. ] ]] 11:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::OK, I see that possibility, but that hasn't ever happened that I'm aware of. I don't think it's worth the instruction creep. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
	I think I'm more or less with Cailil on this one. An administrator cannot overturn a sanction imposed by another admin acting under AE, but he can impose a ''new'' sanction if he sees fit - providing he does it based on misconduct by the sanctioned user ''since'' the original sanction and not on older evidence, because if he did the latter that could probably be considered a change of the original sanction which is not permitted under the existing rules. ] (]) 13:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	:Yes. That's exactly what I had in mind.  ] <sup>]</sup> 09:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
	:: Okay, I can't see much of an objection to that. ] (]) 17:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

	== Appeals (grounds) ==

	Reviewing this a bit more ... Given the volume of appeals, their sometimes directionless nature, and the desirability of reducing the committee's footprint, it would probably be a good idea to try to focus minds. Rather than just rehearing the whole thing again (which is what tends to happen), it might be better to have specific grounds. I suggest:
	# There was no actionable misconduct, or;
	# The sanction was not a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion.
	The first covers situations where there was either (i) no misconduct at all or (ii) the misconduct was of such a minor or inconsequential nature that any sanction is excessive. The second covers administrative over-reaction or heavy-handedness. Thoughts?  ] <sup>]</sup> 15:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

	:I agree that these are the possible grounds of appeal, and that it would be beneficial to request that appellants discuss them. However, that in and of itself is not likely to reduce the volume of appeals. To reduce the strain on the whole Committee, you could direct that appeals are heard by a subcommittee only. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
	::I'm against limiting the cases where an editor may appeal. It's always impossible to anticipate all cases where we may find it necessary to intervene and binding our own hands in advance is always a bad idea. Not to mention that, in my opinion, the two grounds indicated here are so vague that they will not serve the purpose of limiting the number of appeals. Anyway, if we need to explicitly list the grounds of appeals we will accept, I think we should include:
	::*a. lack of competence on the part of the person who imposed the sanction (i.e. a sanction imposed by a non-admin or by a person who has relinquished the tools and hasn't requested them back),
	::* b. unreasonable exercise of administrative discretion (which includes the absence of actionable conduct, considering the presence of disruption is the logical ''prius'' which makes it possible for an admin to impose a sanction), and
	::* c. presence of formal defects (for instance, the sanctioned editor was not aware of the existence of discretionary sanctions).
	::While we're discussing this, I'd also add among the formal requirements that the sanctioned editor should generally have been given a reasonable opportunity to make a statement before being restricted. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 12:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	::: Salvio, some passing thoughts: Your (b) seems to be the same as Roger's (2) ("not a '''reasonable''' exercise of discretion"). Your (c) seems to be the same as Roger's (1) ("no '''actionable''' misconduct"; the draft elsewhere defines misconduct as actionable only after the subject has been duly alerted). Your (a) is a good point. ] ]] 12:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::They are similar, but, in my opinion, there is a small logical difference: I basically lump Roger's two grounds together, saying that, by definition, imposing a sanction in the absence of actionable misconduct is a form of abuse of discretion. A different case is the one where the editor in question has actually misbehaved, but was never warned that his actions could lead to discretionary sanctions. I see this as a different case, because, in this case, a sanction might be reasonable, but it cannot be imposed due to formal requirements. <p>The difference, the way I see it, is that, in cases under b., if another editor had behaved in the very same way after receiving an alert, a hypothetical sanction would still have been inappropriate; in cases under c., on the other hand, the sanction would have been ok. <p>Then again, if we have defined as "actionable" only that misconduct which has occurred after an alert, this case ends up included under b., but, in my opinion, c. should still be included for those cases where particular formal requirements are present and in the event we were to include the need to give the editor in question the chance of making a statement before being sanctioned. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 13:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

	IMO adding a valid grounds for appeal section would not be practical and would just add to instruction creep. Also, I'm concerned that the grounds suggested above necessitate fault finding with the sanctioning admin, which will be likely not only to discourage admin participation at AE, but also to discourage admin participation in appeals. The existing appeals process gives adjudicators plenty of flexibility, either to reconsider the facts altogether, to dismiss the appeal outright, or do anything in between, and to do so entirely on a "no fault" basis if they so choose, which doesn't seem like such a bad approach to me. ] (]) 13:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	:While I agree that it would be better not to have specific ground for appeals, I fear that all appeals entail our second-guessing an admin. Even if we have never formalised it, an appeal is generally accepted only when the imposing admin abused his discretion, so I'm not really sure spelling it out clearly would make much difference. This is different, of course, from the cases where we find that the sanction as originally imposed was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion, but now is no longer necessary (which is, technically, not an appeal, though the end result is basically identical)... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 13:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	:: Well I don't know about that. What I do know is that it's currently possible to change or undo a sanction at appeal with no suggestion of "abuse" by the original administrator, and I'd like to keep it that way. ] (]) 13:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	::: I agree with Gatoclass here, to a point. AE should not be about micromanaging or tweaking sanctions (I think it was Tim Canens or Tarc that made this point at AE a number of times in 2011). Either the sanction is justified or not. The quibbles over "I think it should be 3 months" vs "it should be 3 weeks" are not fruitful. However, if an active consensus at AE decides through an appeal that a sanction should be modified, for what ever reason (demonstrated reform on the part of the appellate, a decision to bring the sanction on User A into line with User B and C, or simply if AGF is being applied), bureaucracy should not get in the way. This reform process has gone a long way to remove legalistic thinking around alerts/warnings it would be a shame if this was forgotten here when such progress has been made. Basing appeals solely on sysop misconduct doesn't help anyone. It'll create a cadre of ppl crying admin abuse even more than they do already (because they'll have to to get their AE sanction overturned) and fundamentally it fails to AGF. <p>Fundamentally I'm asking why are these grounds necessary? Since we're dealing with discretion perhaps a paragraph on "AE is not for micromanaging other admins actions." There needs to be a balance between allowing for a new consensus to form vis-a-vis a sanction and not tweaking actions unless there is a real need (due to mistake or misconduct)--] <sup>]</sup> 13:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::: The test applied to appeals was not always "Is this sanction a fair exercise of administrator discretion?", though that does seem the best one to apply. I think it was Sandstein that introduced this line of thinking, but I'm not sure. ] ]] 11:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
	A concrete example might be helpful here, and reading this discussion calls one to mind. At ], which was granted, there was no contention that the sanction was inappropriate or unjustifiable (indeed, the sanctioned editor acknowledged that it was). Rather, they were just asking for the scope of the restriction to be reduced, since it included some portions that were irrelevant to their case and the areas they had behavior problems in. The appeal was granted, but that was not any finding of misconduct or wrongdoing on the sanctioning admin's part, it was just a reasonable request that there was no harm in granting. This restriction on the scope of appeals to a finding of wrongdoing in the original sanction would also essentially remove the latitude to impose indefinite bans that are not meant to be permanent, but are intended to last until the editor reforms his or her behavior and can successfully demonstrate that in an appeal, rather than just allowing them to wait it out. The appeals section already contains provisions that a frivolous or groundless appeal can result in a restriction from filing another appeal for up to six months, and I think that's sufficient to deter filing an appeal just to throw things at the wall. I don't see any reason to restrict editors to come back and say "I've abided by my restrictions for a year, I realize I was behaving in a way I shouldn't have, and haven't had any problems while editing elsewhere", and I think those are valid grounds on which to appeal. This proposal is well-intentioned, but I think it could have significant unintended consequences. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
	:Well, technically, that's not an appeal: by its very nature, an appeal requires a sanctioned editor to question the validity of the restriction he is under. If an editor says "I accept that the sanction was reasonable then, but in my opinion it's no longer needed now", that's not an appeal and should be treated differently, meaning that we should not just examine whether the original sanction was a fair exercise of admin discretion, but rather whether or not it is still necessary, but, as I said, these are two different concepts. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 11:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
	::Yes, to a point. Having seen the way this discussion has gone, I am not convinced that we need to specify grounds for appeal (or rather it seems that the disadvantages of doing so outweigh the advantages). As people will always talk about appeals when they mean reconsideration or clemency, easiest is probably to define appeal as including any request for reconsideration of the decision. Which has the advantage of simplicity.  ] <sup>]</sup> 12:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::Based on the language there, I'm not sure that's the definition of "appeal" that's intended. Why would we limit the future restrictions to six months in that case? If "appeal" only means an assertion that a sanction is groundless, and the appeals process determines that in fact there were legitimate grounds for it, future "appeals" should be barred in all cases and indefinitely. A sanction which was applied for valid reasons won't become invalid six months from now. Currently, however, the term "appeal" means a request to have one's restrictions lifted for any reason, whether on the grounds that they were invalid to begin with or that they were valid but are no longer needed. As this is already the wide understanding of "appeal", I think defining it more narrowly would be unnecessarily confusing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}} I've added a definition of '''Appeal''' that is really broad, to make it clear that for our purposes the DS meaning is much wider than the legal one.  ] <sup>]</sup> 16:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

	== Looking forward to the final "draft" ==

	There seem to be a number of aspects in the process that could be improved, from the perspective of the community, the participating admins, and the Committee. Some quick observations have me puzzling over several questions:
	*Why is the appeals process so little used?
	*How can admins in this forum be encouraged to engage more and engage earlier with the root, underlying issues that parties are experiencing—issues that if not resolved could at least be calmed enough to prevent the departure of valued editors
	*Although there's a general shortage of admins, why can't more be attracted into serving at AE—even temporary stints of a few months? It's actually a good place for using and refining advanced admin skills in judging and resolving difficult situations. AE is surely a training ground for anyone who's thinking of running for ArbCom in subsequent years, and good anyway for acquiring the personal skills that are often the distinguishing feature of first-class adminning in the community at large. Heaven knows how short of the right kind of adminning we are for hot-button content areas, specifically. ] ] 10:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

	:: My views, not necessarily shared by my colleagues:
	::*Only problematic sanctions seem to linger in the community's mind. Most sanctions are given for blatant misconduct, and the recipients appear to realise they'd have no success with an appeal that there was a miscarriage of justice. They just wait for the sanction to expire.
	::*Is "this forum" AE? By the committee telling administrators to favour warnings and cautions over actual sanctions, I guess; but I worry doing so will make the DS process less effective.
	::*When I served as an AE sysop, I found the most trying thing was that the respondent's buddies tend to show up at the thread and submit lengthy statements calling for the complainant to be sanctioned instead. Also, some sanctioned editors and their wikifriends, particularly for geo-ethnic conflict areas, have an alarming tendency to bear grudges against the administrators that sanctioned them. It doesn't seem to be so bad these days, but it's still not a pleasant experience for people whose temperament is unsuitable or who don't enjoy difficult Wikitasks. ] ]] 11:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::I partially agree with your first comment AGK and I think that is true for a chunk of the DS's but I also think there is a large chunk of the population that doesn't do it because it takes so long and there is another chunk that doesn't trust the process. Arbcom has a tendency to punish all those involved not just the offender so its reasonable to think that coming back would only make things worse not better. I also think the Arbcom decisions are inconsistent and frequently do not punish the right ones involved. Which sort of eludes to your point number three, in some cases it is the complainant that is the problem and I have seen multiple cases were the admin involved was as much or more to blame for the problem than the editor that was punished. There is severe favoritism shown towards admins over regular editors and that has been the case for a long time. Generally speaking a lot of the community doesn't trust the Arbcom decisions and a lot doesn't care one way or the other....until it affects them. So IMO there is a lot of room for improvement to the process. ] (]) 12:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Do you have evidence for your assertion that "there is severe favoritism shown towards admins"? I'm an AE regular and don't get that impression – in fact, it so happens that was an administrator and then an ArbCom candidate. It's true that there's probably a low absolute number of admins being sanctioned, but I guess that is because there are fewer admins than other editors to begin with, and because of their selection process they tend not to be the kind of editor who is frequently accused of misconduct. <p>In general, I agree with AGK's assessment. I don't think that AE is the forum for dealing with any "root, underlying issues" - these are generally content disagreements and therefore beyond the scope of the arbitration process. All AE can do is reactively suppress misconduct as it happens. Proactive problem solution efforts are the domain of other, equally valuable processes such as mediation. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Yes absolutely, look at virtually any arbcom case where an admin is involved. The non admins get sanctioned or banned and the Admins get admonishment whatever the hell that is. In many cases they should be desysopped. Look at the list of admin actions and you can see a lot of problematic admin decisions with regards to comments when deleting, abusive messages left on talk pages, questionable actions with regards to blocks and protections, and the list goes on. Personally I find it a borderline abuse of tools when admins protect their Userpages or talkpages. Unless of course there is a history of vandalism and even then it should be temporary. There are quite a few admins in fact that need to have the tools removed from them but the process is so slow and painstaking most people just leave the site rather than deal with problematic and bullyish admins. As far as mediation, that process doesn't work because we don't put any effort into it and it doesn't have any teeth. If there were some ability to folow through on the agreements, even for a temporary period of time, it would be an improvement. As for the Arthur rubin incident, its funny you bring that up because that is a prime example of an action I thought pushed the outer bounds of the Discretionary sanction rule and is a good example of why that rule doesn't work. It allows Admins such as yourself that seem to favor extreme blocks unlimited discretion and latitude to react any way you want with no repercussions. The fact that he is an admin also points to the argument that there is favoritism because seeing your trend of blocks if he wasn't you would have likely blocked him for a month to a year. Rarely do I see you use a week unless it involves admins. ] (]) 15:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

	::AE has, and always has had, robust appeal arrangements. Appeals can be heard at either ] or ]. The AN route is almost completely unused largely because the appeals heard there have often been packed by the appellant's opponents, resulting in no consensus. As there is no concept of "involved editor", this is a systemic problem. Appeals at AE are sometimes tainted by bearing here in the same forum where the sanction was imposed, but proposed refinements should address that. That said, what has been an issue is editors gaming the appeal system because either (a) having been excluded from their favourite area they have nothing better to do or (b) to put it bluntly, the same personality traits that caused the original problem prevent them from moving on into non-contentious areas.<p>There is certainly some scope for the committee recommending that for minor first offences (that is, engaging in ''fresh but not serious instances of sanctionable behaviour within the topic after having been warned'') the administrator consider handling it informally. However, if we place too much emphasis on this, there is the strong possibility that it will creep into more serious instances of misbehaviour which would, under normal circumstances, fully merit a sanction.<p>One of the greatest problems in dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages is the tendency to never forgive, never forget. This is often coupled with a desire to win a dispute, even trivial ones, by any available means, no matter how long it takes or how much community energy is wastefully expended in the meantime. This is why when stuff gets to ArbCom the only way to deal with the parties is to prise them off each others' throats with a crow bar. Sometimes, in the process of separation, the disputing parties stop feuding with each other and instead turn on the admins sorting out the mess. This makes AE unattractive for all but the most assured and experienced admins, who have developed coping mechanisms.  ] <sup>]</sup> 13:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::That problem though Roger is that the appeals never occur. You can say that there is an appeals process but when there is a nearly 100% denial rate it sends a pretty clear message to the community not to waste their time. AE and AN have both in repeated occasions stated they didn't have the authority to overturn an Arbcom sanction. On occassion a general block is overturned but those cases are rare and usually only pertain to admins. Your point about never forgive and forget is also a good one and there is also a major problem with Wikihounding by admins who feel like they need to be the edit police and go digging for any reason to block. When someone does 10, 000 edits a month, if you look, you '''will''' find something. This includes these badly worded and badly implemented "broadly construed" discretionary sanctions. Most of the 1400+ admins don't follow the cases, so when they see someone editing they make their own determinations about what a violation of a sanction is. In many cases, the edit is so far off the sanctioned topic that its barely related, yet no one undoes the block or steps in to correct it. That is the fault of Arbcom and to a degree AE. Arbitration enforcement should not only be inflicting punishment, it should also be ensuring that the action is fair and in keeping with the sanction. ] (]) 15:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::I really don't understand the thrust of this at all. Since when don't AE or ANI have the authority to overturn an AE sanction? This whole discussion is getting bogged down in hype, myth and misinformation.  ] <sup>]</sup> 16:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I guess I would need to see more than 1 or 2 isolated cases where it was done to believe that this is just hype, myth and misinformation. It may well be incorrect but it is a perception that is resident within the community. Sandstein has said it multiple times, I beleive I just saw AGK say it in the past couple months on a case that an appeal had to go through arbcom and AE did not have the authority to overturn it and ANI definately without a question in my mind does not have that power. In fact if these venues did wouldn't it negate the point of Arbitration if the community could just revert the action by supermajority? AE sanctions are done on the authority of the arbitration motion, so any random admin at ANI would logically not have the authority to just overturn it. Sandstein has said it himself that consensus does not apply to AE. So how would there be a consensus at AE to overturn an AE ruling if there is no application of consensus? In fact in the last year I believe I have only seen one caseof an AE motion being overturned and that was because the admin that did it was bombarded by complaints about how bad the decision was to block that individual. They finally relented after about 2 weeks of constant debate and only then because multiple admins were invovled. Appeals simply do not happen because although they might be allowed by policy they are dismissed. ] (]) 17:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Well, over the last couple of months, there have been at least two successful appeals, one granted by ] and one by {{plainlink\|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=573567688#Motion:_The_Devil.27s_Advocate_.28Scientology_AE_appeal.29\|name=by ArbCom}}. It's true, successful appeals are rare (I don't know why {{endash}} it's possible that they are rare because editors don't even bother appealing a sanction they perceive as unwarranted because they think their appeal won't be taken seriously, which would be a problem), but they do happen. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 18:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I would point out that the appeal to the Arbcom was successful only after a high profile, and I think damaging ANI discussion which was quite prejudicial to the AE admin. My own appeal to the Arbcom was low profile, and unsuccessful, so far at least. —] (]) 00:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::(e/c) Roger, I've been away for a while, but from what I recall the appeals process is not nearly as robust as you indicate, if not as pointless as Kumioko asserts. AE requests can and have been closed by a single administrator, even in the midst of objection and discussion, and appeals to the same have a very hard time overcoming the wide discretion granted to administrators, especially given reluctance of AE admins to try to override another, for reasons of respect, and fear of being accused of wheel warring and/or flouting Aribtration remedy.
	:::::As a result, if you will allow the descent into amateurish game theory, is that you have a first-mover problem combined with a most-severe problem, the first admin to close a request is likely to have their preferred sanction prevail, except that sanctions are far easier to extend than to shorten, by pointing to any subsequent behavior as the user not learning their lesson. Combined with the behavior norms, the appeals process gets sticky, and the admins most likely to push or enact an appeal are not infrequently those a little more hot under the collar.
	:::::I'm not sure you can legislate (that is, policy or rules write) the problem away. The solution may just be for patrolling administrators to be aware of the dynamics and give extra efforts to avoid trampling over each-other and to treat sanctions with kid gloves. Maybe some rejiggering of the degree to which admins can check other admins, or even a dedicated panel providing review could do it, or maybe the status quo is the best we have. But it isn't a fake problem.--] (]) 17:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: I agree with Tznkai that sometimes requests are closed prematurely, but I think this has been occurring less often in recent times. With regard to the appeals process, I think that by and large it works quite well. I don't agree there are too few appeals - there seems to me to be rather a lot of them - but IMO the reason most fail is simply because they have no merit. ] (]) 12:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: There's nothing to prevent appeals being re-opened if they've been closed prematurely. Perhaps you could keep an eye open for this and chip in, Tznkai? Otherwise, I agree that it has a lot to do with dynamics (which will change depending on the mix of participants, as anything else).  ] <sup>]</sup> 12:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Why so few editors bother to appeal is the question. ] ] 12:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::: That could be answered by examining the contributions made by some sanctioned editors in the days and weeks after they were sanctioned (or indeed by asking them). ] ]] 12:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::: I know many treat it as a wake up call, and move somewhere less contentious. There are around 4,5 million articles to choose from ofterall.  ] <sup>]</sup> 12:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Roger, I am happy to pitch in, but it is a poor system that depends on any particular operator, and the system will push its operators in one direction or another. More importantly, and this is just one of the real dangers in the whole arbitration enforcement process, just slightly exacerbated in zone-of-conflict style enforcement, there is little administrators can do to restrain other administrators other than pleading. Reopening a prematurely closed sanction or appeal can be fairy interpreted as attempting to overide another. Running off to ArbCom for an appeal in every case is dubious - you shouldn't ask administrators to have to skip straight to bridge burning to exercise a little control. Personally, I think I viable solution is to beef up the expectations of administrators, perhaps with specific reminders to be reasonable and solicitous of other administrators.--] (]) 15:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::So the "informational warnings" are actually meant to be a "wake up call" to leave, and are in fact interpreted in that way, by both the AE admins and the content editors. And one of these templates can be delivered to anyone, for no reason at all, without explaining anything to them, and there is no criteria for who gets selected to receive one of these "wake up calls" and who doesn't, other than it's understood they won't be given to admins. —] (]) 02:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

	== Context: Sue, on the Misplaced Pages death spiral and the "holy shit" slide ==

	The discretionary sanctions system is not isolated, but co-exists inside the WP system. How do they mesh? And how would this proposal change the current equilibrium?

	A .
	<blockquote>2:00 Editor retention is not not not OK. It’s a big problem. It’s the thing that needs to be solved.
	2:30 “The holy shit slide.” New editors aren’t making it to their first year anniversary. People are coming in large numbers as they always have, but they are getting rebuffed. Why are they failing to enter the community? Warnings have gone up, criticism is ‘way up’, and praise and thanks have been in decline. People join, and then it’s warning template after template.

	25:00 People are playing Misplaced Pages like a video game, shooting down vandals, and every now and then a nun or a tourist wanders in front of the AK47 and just gets murdered. "What we think now is that it's all nuns and tourists. There's a big massacre and there's one vandal in the background running away. And meanwhile everyone else is dead."</blockquote>
	Well, that sure hits home.

	—] (]) 08:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

	: Sue seems to be talking about the ''user warning (uw)'' templates being used on brand new editors. Discretionary sanctions, on the other hand, are really only used on established editors. I doubt there is wisdom in Sue's words: her penchant for soundbites is infamous. But if there is, you may be heartened to know that the DSR has led to a softer "alert" template being created; it basically takes the stigma out of what we currently call "notices". Regards, ] ]] 08:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	::Though it may be true that Sue likes the publicity I hope you realize your comments show that you don't take the problem of editor retention seriously. Whether you choose to agree or not (being one of those that dole them out) discretionary sanctions are hurting the project and the broadly construed language that allows any admin to interpret the sanction anyway they want contributes to that compounding the problem. As you know I am aware of why the broadly construed language was added but I have come to believe that the fix for the problem is worse that the problem itself and needs to be rethought. ] (]) 17:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	: (scroll down to number of editors) indicates actual number of editors is essentially flat. <small>]</small> 20:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	:: I find this data useful too, which shows that the number of ''active'' editors (I generally use a rule of thumb of over 100 edits per month), seems relatively steady, hovering around 3,000–3,500 per month. Higher at some times of the year (such as the holidays), lower in others. --]]] 21:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::@] and ],

	:::*The actual number of editors is not flat at all, it only looks that way because the top of the graph is compressed--it’s not to scale. Estimating from the actual numbers on the y-axis, the number of editors on the English Misplaced Pages has dropped from roughly 30,000 to 35,000 users, a decrease of around 5,000 users. That’s as many editors as are on the whole French Misplaced Pages altogether.

	:::*Looking at the other document with the editor number charts, you can see that the number of users peaked in April 2007 and has since steadily declined. The number of users with over 100 edits has dropped from 4733 in April of 2007 to 2990 in October of 2013, a net decrease of 1773 editors, or 37.2%. The downward trend is steady; if you compare October of 2012 to October 2013, there was a decrease in editors from 3222 to 2990, a net decrease of 7%.

	:::So Sue pretty much nailed it. If this isn’t an “oh shit” document, I don’t know what is. —] (]) 08:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::: It's true that the numbers were higher in 2007, but that's normal. If you look at any new software, product, game, etc., and its graph of participation, you will usually see it start low, then interest will "spike" while the product is new, and then trail off and stabilize. I call this effect the "novelty spike". As things trail off, it doesn't mean that the product is doomed, it just means that the novelty has worn off. The better metric is to just look at the numbers over the last three years or so, rather than look at all numbers since the project began. --]]] 15:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I don't see it stabilizing, it's still going down. You don't have to even plug the numbers into a line graph, just eyeball the columns. Any of them. They're all going down, and for the last seven years. "Endless September"?

	:::::That has some sobering implications, in light of the Arbitration Enforcement's stated goal of resolving disagreements by just getting rid of all the editors, and starting over. —] (]) 09:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::The foregoing comment concerning editor retention has implications in terms of the comment currently immediately below what I'm writing ('An active and effective DS system can help with editor retention by removing the (normally few) problematic editors from areas where their aggressive, confrontational and bullying conduct deters the majority of collaboratively-minded editors from participating'). I've stated before that this is inherently illogical. The arbitration in question was supposed to do that, and presumably did that. Otherwise, what was the purpose of the arbitration? But in conjunction with an arbitration which allegedly achieved that purpose, discretionary sanctions are then imposed when there are by definition no other 'bad editors' involved with the topic in question because if there had been, why weren't they brought into the arbitration, and dealt with along with the other 'bad editors'? Thus, when DS are imposed as part of an arbitration, they are by definition imposed on ''potential'' editors who might turn out to be 'bad editors'. This can't help but create an atmosphere of unease, particularly when very few editors fully understand what DS entail, and with good reason, because DS are 'discretionary' by definition, and therefore play out in many different ways. The root question I've asked before remains, and has never been answered. When an arbitration has supposedly gotten rid of all the 'bad editors' currently involved with the topic in question (otherwise, why was there an arbitration in the first place?), why are DS imposed as part of the arbitration when supposedly there are no 'bad editors' left editing on that topic? ] (]) 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

	An active and effective DS system can help with editor retention by removing the (normally few) problematic editors from areas where their aggressive, confrontational and bullying conduct deters the majority of collaboratively-minded editors from participating. With every such editor removed, we improve the climate and create editing opportunities for many others. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	:Is there evidence to support that contention? <small>]</small> 22:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	::The problem with that Sandstein is that theory does not hold true. What actually happens is the broadly construed terminology ends up being used as a bludgeon for admins to block editors, any of whom are unaware of the sanction. That action is seen by others and it causes a ripple effect. So what ends up happening is either no one edits the articles at all or the articles are only edited by those who only post the positive to the articles. This means that the articles do not have a neutral tone. I would also argue that many of the "probleatic" editors you mention were just the non admins of the group. ] (]) 01:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	::NE Ent, it seems self-evident. ] ]] 06:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	:So let's take as an example the recent Infoboxes Case. The case involved the topic area of opera and classical music, and had wide participation by editors in that field, some of whom had stayed away for years because they did not want to participate in continuous infobox discussions. As a result of the case, two individuals ended up with restrictions, based on findings, backed by evidence. Now, say some new individual comes along and starts adding infoboxes at random to classical music articles. I think what Sandstein is saying here is that at this point, it will be the business of AE to simply get rid of the music editors who participated in the original case.—] (]) 02:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	::That depends. Are the "music editors" engaging in the same type of aggressive conduct that got them sanctioned in the first place? Then yes, they need to be removed. Are they behaving well but the other editor behaving poorly? Then the other one needs to go. Are both sides attacking one another? Then they're creating a toxic environment and they all need to be stopped from it. Is everyone discussing the matter calmly and without rancor, being willing to hear out the other side and expressing reasoned disagreement if they disagree? That's what should be happening, and if it is, no one needs to be sanctioned at all. It's entirely dependent upon how each particular editor is behaving. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::If I may split the baby for a moment, we need to simultaneously be more hospitable to passionate editors while also controlling bad conduct. What we have a is a culture problem - if partisan nastiness prevails, all you get is partisan nastiness, but if zero tolerance prevails, you get no one. We need to encourage editing environments to allow partisan warriors to be transformed into reasonable well behaved editors, and eliminate editing environments that ensure only the hardiest of partisans survive. We must play to win, not just to avoid losing. I think the best solution, given other Misplaced Pages norms, in my opinion, is to empower admins as necessary to clear the decks, but encourage them to use a deft touch. More than cops or judges, administrators in this context are like mid-year replacement school teachers in a classroom out of control.--] (]) 04:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::It sounds like the editors who were not named in the final decision, and who are already exhausted by years of acrimony, have no choice but to reopen the matter and rehash all the old arguments, and expose themselves once again to the possibly of being sanctioned just for participating, in order to satisfy the one person who came after the dispute was closed.—] (]) 04:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::I don't think they're being forced to participate, no. Though I think if one sees people consistently coming along and saying "Hey, this is wrong", the options are that either something isn't quite right and might need more extensive examination, or that there may need to be a clear synopsis made available for those unaware that significant discussion on the matter has already taken place. I would see nothing wrong with saying "This has been discussed extensively. To avoid repetition, could you please review this previous RfC, and see if there are any concerns you have that aren't already addressed there?" That's very different from "Oh, yet one more idiot on about this." I've seen both done. The former is conducive to calm discussion (and often ends with "Oh, I see now, thanks"), while the latter will probably start a (much more exhausting) fight. Keeping a civil tone and being willing to listen does not mean that one must agree to endless debate or accept abuse, but it does reduce the likelihood of either occurring to start with. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Personally I think the infobox debate is a perfect example of WikiProject exerting undo influence and ownership over the articles in their scope. I found it shocking the Arbco actually supported this concept and frankly I think it was a mistake and sacrificed policy to appease a couple of overly aggressive WikiProjects. That is a trend I am seeing all too often from the Committee these days and therein lies the problem with them. ] (]) 14:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

	== Misplaced Pages 'justice system' ==

	As per the discussion above, I'll start a new section here to clarify what I think would be quick 'fixes' to bring the Misplaced Pages 'justice system' more into line with the principles of justice in the rest of the Western world (see the earlier discussion for the rationale).
	*No indefinite 'sentences' (sanctions) on individual editors. Either permanent bans or fixed-term bans which will eventually expire without the need for time-consuming requests to have indefinite bans on individual editors lifted. There would have to be an appeal procedure, but most editors on whom fixed-term bans have been imposed will just wait to have them expire rather than tackle the technically complex and confusing appeal procedure which currently exists.
	*No sentences (sanctions) 'broadly construed' for individual editors. This implies fewer topic bans for individual editors because they're the only sentence (sanction) which uses the language 'broadly construed'. It's far simpler, far more efficient, and far more logical to ban a troublesome editor altogether for a definite period of time which will eventually expire than to impose a topic ban 'broadly construed' which may be difficult for administrators and the banned editor to interpret.
	*No discretionary sentences (discretionary sanctions). Replace them with topic sanctions, the primary purpose of which is to shut down a conflict-ridden page until tempers cool. Editors will hate this, but they'll hate it en masse, and no individual editor will feel individually picked on and unfairly dealt with. And think of the administrative time that will be saved! All that's required is a page block.
	All quick and easy 'fixes'. All eminently fair. All will lessen administrative overload. ] (]) 20:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
	:Misplaced Pages's procedures are nothing to do with "justice"—they are aimed at improving the encyclopedia by reducing disruption. Bitter experience shows that assigning fixed-term blocks or bans in long-term cases is ineffective because someone who is on a mission to promote the truth will simply wait out the sanction, and then resume, albeit with more caution. The result is a training system that generates better POV warriors who are able to push their case longer and harder before the next sanction. By contrast, an indefinite system is totally flexible as it allows the sanction to be lifted as soon as the editor concerned demonstrates an understanding of how to achieve a positive outcome for the encyclopedia. It is essential that "broadly construed" be retained as it is amazing how some topic banned editors react to their situation—"oh, I can't edit Obama articles to allege deficiencies in his birth certificate, so I'll go and edit birth certificate articles and point out how they can be forged in order to claim citizenship". In some cases, there are unfortunate side effects from a broadly construed topic ban, but in a complex project where ''anyone can edit'', perfect dispute resolution is unachievable. ] (]) 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
	::Hi Johnuniq. You wrote:'By contrast, an indefinite system is totally flexible as it allows the sanction to be lifted as soon as the editor concerned demonstrates an understanding of how to achieve a positive outcome for the encyclopedia'. Illogical, I'm afraid, and I'll bet it almost never happens, because firstly, it's a total Catch-22 because a banned editor can't demonstrate ''anything'' during an indefinite ban, so how can an appeal of an indefinite ban ever succeed on the ground that the editor has now demonstrated he can achieve a positive outcome for the encyclopedia? Secondly, the type of editor of whom you're speaking would be quite capable of pulling the wool over the arbitrators' eyes by grovelling during an appeal, so nothing is gained by the indefinite ban and the appeal that wouldn't be gained by just banning the editor for a couple of years and saving both the banned editor and the arbitrators the trouble of an appeal. You also wrote: 'It is essential that "broadly construed" be retained as it is amazing how some topic banned editors react to their situation—"oh, I can't edit Obama articles to allege deficiencies in his birth certificate, so I'll go and edit birth certificate articles and point out how they can be forged in order to claim citizenship". Very true, and that's why I said earlier that Misplaced Pages should never topic-ban individual editors. If an editor has behaved really badly -- sufficiently badly to warrant banning as a result of an arbitration -- then the arbitrators should just ban that editor for a fixed period of time. Get the editor away from editing ''entirely'' for 6 months or a year or two, or however long the arbitrators deem necessary. Unfortunately there seems to be no clarity in the arbitrators' minds when it comes to the difference between topic-banning an editor, which is a waste of time, and imposing 'sanctions' on a ''topic''. To keep a page which is a 'hot' topic relatively free of conflict, all that's needed is a page block by an administrator for however long it takes to tamp down the conflict on that page. As I said above, all editors will hate the fact that no-one can edit the page during the page block, but no-one will feel that he has been singled out and unjustly picked-on. We have to keep in mind that most of these POV-pushers, as Misplaced Pages terms them, are decent people with very strong views on a particular topic, often very strong moral or political views. They're mostly not bad people, or vandals, so trying to punish them individually in a fair and just way is fraught with a lot more problems than just blocking the page in question from editing by anyone for a few days (or longer, if necessary). ] (]) 01:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::I'm shocked at the number of people who have stated that 'Misplaced Pages's procedures are nothing to do with "justice"', and can only conclude that this view is widely held by arbitrators and administrators, and if so, it demonstrates that there needs to be a review of basic premises. If Misplaced Pages procedures have nothing to do with 'justice', then they can only have to do with the obverse, 'injustice', and I doubt any arbitrator or administrator with agree with that characterization of Misplaced Pages procedures. What seems to be needed is a clear distinction between two very different things, the Western world's principles of 'justice', and the complex procedures of the Western world's 'criminal justice system' involving legal representation and a myriad of legal procedures which would tie Misplaced Pages up in knots and cannot possibly have a place here. However before leaving the latter point, wouldn't any objective observer looking at the draft procedures for discretionary sanctions and the endless back and forth on this page decide that Misplaced Pages has indeed tied itself up in procedural knots equal to the procedural knots of the criminal justice system?
	:::Misplaced Pages procedures ''do'' have to be about justice, and the quickest way for Misplaced Pages to get back to procedural justice is the elimination of the most blatant of the Misplaced Pages sanctions which violate the Western world's concept of justice, i.e. the imposition of indefinite 'sentences' against individual editors, and the imposition of sentences 'broadly construed' against individual editors. The reasons against both have been explained already, but in summary, an 'indefinite' sentence is really a permanent ban in disguise because of the technical difficulties which banned editors face in trying to launch an appeal and in gauging when the arbitrators might be disposed to hear one, and because of the reality that most editors against whom an indefinite topic ban is imposed are single-purpose editors and POV-pushers, as Misplaced Pages terms them, and have no interest in editing elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, so they're never going to be able to demonstrate 'an understanding of how to achieve a positive outcome for the encyclopedia', as Johnuniq put it above. Most of them are never going to edit successfully elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. And if they do, they'll likely be met with accusations that they're violating the indefinite topic ban, as per Johnuniq's example above, which brings in the 'broadly construed' problem. Johnuniq wrote: 'It is essential that "broadly construed" be retained as it is amazing how some topic banned editors react to their situation—"oh, I can't edit Obama articles to allege deficiencies in his birth certificate, so I'll go and edit birth certificate articles and point out how they can be forged in order to claim citizenship".' I think many objective observers outside Misplaced Pages would look at that example and say, 'Well, editing a general article on birth certificates has nothing to do with discrediting Obama's birth certificate in particular, and if the forging of birth certificates for various purposes is a legitimate topic in an article on birth certificates, and the edits are backed up by reliable sources, what has this particular editor done to violate his topic ban'? That's the whole problem with topic bans in a nutshell. They're subject to interpretation, and in very few cases will there be agreement on the proper interpretation. That sort of 'sentence' violates the principles of Western justice, which mandate that whatever the penalty imposed, it must be clear and definite, and that nothing be left to 'interpretation'.
	:::The quick 'fix' is a simple one. All bans on individual editors need to have a fixed time period, i.e. either a permanent ban for the most egregious conduct by an editor who is considered destructive and irredeemable, or a fixed-term ban (6 months, a year, whatever) which will eventually expire, and will allow the editor to resume editing without any time-consuming involvement by administrators or arbitrators. If the conduct recurs, then obviously a lengthier fixed-term ban can be imposed.
	:::An entirely separate problem involves pages which are known conflict areas, and the 'quick fix', which will both decrease administrator workload and increase editor retention, is page blocks. I suspect administrators and arbitrators have forgotten (if they ever knew) what an insulting slap in the face and blow to one's self-respect a block on an individual editor is. It's no wonder many editors leave Misplaced Pages entirely after having been personally blocked for some infraction or other. The problem with individual editor blocks and other sanctions on individual editors is that there are always hurt feelings. Moreover because everything is discretionary, editors never know for sure what might come down on them, another violation of the principle of Western justice which holds that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but at the same time specifies the precise penalty which will result from infringement of a particular law. Discretionary sanctions create a feeling of unease and insecurity among editors, because there's simply no predicting what might happen. Page blocks, on the other hand, frustrate all involved editors equally, but single out no-one individually, which assists in editor retention and dramatically reduces administrator workload.
	:::As I said earlier, it's a win-win situation all round. ] (]) 18:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::NinaGreen, you stated "If Misplaced Pages procedures have nothing to do with 'justice', then they can only have to do with the obverse, 'injustice'." This is not even a little true. Those of us who have been arguing with you have been saying that Misplaced Pages (and its dispute resolution systems) operate orthagonally to justice, not in opposition. You've asserted that you offer quick fixes, that are win-win all around, and I hope you've noted that several editors have reasonably disagreed on both of those points. We can get into point and counter point as neccessary, but why do you think that "Western justice," again, assuming for the sake of argument that such a thing exists, is a thing worthy of following here? It is certainly true that the majority of the editors are steeped in cultural assumptions broadly from so called "Western civilization," and that informs much of what we do, but it is quite a hop skip and a jump to suggest we want to import the same indefinite conflict that whole nations have and continue to kill whole other nations over into editorial debate.--] (]) 21:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Tznkai, I've also said that an objective outsider looking at Misplaced Pages's oligarchy consisting of a handful of arbitrators, its 1400 administrators, and its use of the term 'arbitration enforcement' (AE) might think we were running a police state here.:-) Would that be sufficiently different from 'Western judicial principles' to make you happy?:-) On a more serious note, I've suggested quick 'fixes' which would lessen administrator workload, increase editor retention, and create an all-round happier atmosphere on Misplaced Pages. Let's keep the discussion focussed on that, and not go off onto philosophical tangents. Happy New Year, everyone! ] (]) 22:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
	::::::A question just occurred to me. Is there any mechanism for implementing my suggestions? I ask this because I'm not aware of one. It seems everything is ultimately in the hands of the above-mentioned oligarchy. I don't use the term disparagingly. I respect and appreciate the arbitrators' commitment to a very difficult and time-consuming job. But the reality seems to be that every aspect of Misplaced Pages sanctions is ultimately up to the arbitrators, and there is no mechanism for making changes to the nature of Misplaced Pages sanctions or to the manner in which sanctions are administered other than convincing the arbitrators. Or am I wrong? ] (]) 17:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes and no. "Yes" in the sense that major policy decisions are made via the ] process. Examples include the list at ] and ], and arbcom policy can be ] if you can get 100 editors to sign off on the proposal. "No" in the sense that there are {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} active users, the overwhelming majority of whom never get sucked up into the dispute resolution process at all. We don't operate a justice as I've essayed at ] and the committee is't really at that important as explained at ]. Misplaced Pages "inside" i.e. stuff within the Misplaced Pages: namespace is a political process, and you're just not going to get sufficient support with your approach here. Your posts are way too long, too strident (e.g. using inflammatory terms like "oligarchy"), and are proposing radical overhaul of existing systems that have evolved over the years. The way to enact change is generally slowly, through persuasion while respecting the rest of the community. <small>]</small> 17:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Thanks for your comments, NE Ent. They're appreciated. But I suggest you moderate your own scolding tone. My postings have not been strident, and 'oligarchy' is not an inflammatory term; it's a term to describe a political reality, wherever it might occur, and I specifically stated that I was not using it disparagingly. As for my postings being too long, if you can suggest a more compendious way of discussing far-reaching principles underlying dispute resolution, please do so. I'd say the length of the discussion of the proposed changes to DS on this page (totally exclusive of my own postings) demonstrates in spades just how difficult it is to discuss this topic compendiously. But back to the main issue. Getting 100 editors to sign anything seems a rather hopeless task, and I think my question highlights the fact that there needs to be more community input into the dispute resolution process in a way which doesn't require one individual to canvass support from 100 editors. You're right that my suggestions imply a 'radical overhaul of existing systems that have evolved over the years', but that's beside the point. The point is whether the existing systems need overhauling, and whether the changes I've suggested would improve Misplaced Pages. You also wrote: 'The way to enact change is generally slowly, through persuasion while respecting the rest of the community.' I couldn't agree more. That's why I've taken the time and trouble to post on this topic and to put these suggestions forward for consideration. Over the long term, I think change ''will'' take place. But the seed for change has to be planted somewhere. I'm not naive enough to think the arbitrators will adopt my suggestions tomorrow. But I respect them enough to know they're not entirely ignoring them. I also want to add, with all due respect, that the first change which should be made is for you to retitle your essay ] from 'Misplaced Pages: There is no justice' to Misplaced Pages is not a legal system'. There is a huge difference between the two things, as I pointed out in one of my postings above, and I think many people both inside and outside Misplaced Pages would find it offensive that Misplaced Pages openly brags that 'there is no justice' and that 'Misplaced Pages is not fair'. Where do these ideas come from? ] (]) 19:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

	{{od}}

	I broadly agree with what ] says here. I have been appalled over the last few years at how badly broken RfCs on users and the ANI page are see for example: "". -- ] (]) 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

	== General comments from Harry Mitchell ==

	I've been involved at AE, on and off, for several years. I seem to be a little late to this party, but I wanted to make some comments and suggestions (on arbitration enforcement/discretionary sanctions in general, rather than the draft text), both for the consideration of the committee, and for members of the wider community who do not closely follow AE.


	'''Comments/observations''' on AE and discretionary sanctins as they are currently:
	*The first thing I feel I should state, in the light of some of the comments I've read here and elsewhere, is that the vast majority of actions taken under the provisions of discretionary sanctions are entirely uncontroversial and usually irrefutable. The sanctions are usually for conduct that any reasonable person would think fell well below the level of decorum expected of encyclopaedia editors, much less editors working in toxic and controversial topic areas. In >90% of cases, no objective person could look at the facts and conclude that the admin acted unreasonably.
	*Although any single admin has the power to enforce arbitration remedies (including imposing discretionary sanctions in the areas where they're authorised) unilaterally, my experience is that most violations are reported to WP:AE, because it's the best place to find admins familiar with the procedures. Thus, most enforcement requests get the attention of at least two or three admins, even if the result is uncontroversial, and several more will likely see it but not comment. AE is of course a public noticeboard. While it's not a venue for threaded discussion, any editor can comment on requests. I for one would welcome concise, clueful comments from uninvolved editors, especially those with no strong feelings about the topic area in question.
	*Contrary to comments about admins having sweeping powers, we only enforce arbitration remedies. Although in the case of discretionary sanctions, we have close to ''carte blanche'' to decide on the exact method of enforcement (if enforcement action is necessary—"discretionary" also means that we have the option of taking no action or of a warning or something else intangible), we don't just make up the rules as we go along, and we can't sanction people willy nilly. In fact, our hands are tied by ArbCom much more tightly than is commonly believed. If you're unlucky enough to be sanctioned at AE, you would have to have done something that falls well below the standard of conduct expected of editors in controversial topic areas, ''after'' being advised of the expected level of conduct (or, if this draft becomes policy, clearly demonstrating that you are aware of it), and most likely after seeing edit-notices and talk page banners advising you of the discretionary sanctions, and probably after being advised that your conduct did not meet that standard. I'm an empathetic person, but I'd struggle to believe that that was just bad luck.
	*Others have (correctly) observed that AE is dominated by a small number of admins. This is probably a result of a combination factors, including the toxicity that surrounds arbitration, the perniciousness of the topic areas subject to the sanctions, and the bureaucratic procedures involved with taking arbitration enforcement actions. This is not ideal, but it's not a crisis—some admins are more active than others, some comment on issues to do with particular topic areas, much like any other areas; of course, more objective opinions (from admins and non-admins alike) would be very welcome.
	*There is a lack of critical thinking at AE. Many of the editors we deal with at AE are not bad people; they're not trolls or vandals. For the most part, although their actions are disruptive, it is not their intention to damage the encyclopaedia, and AE admins should, wherever possible, seek ways of limiting their disruption while allowing them to continue making constructive edits. AE admins too often (in my opinion) fall back on blunt instruments which either kick the can down the road (such as short-term blocks) or give the editor no chance to redeem themselves or make constructive edits in less controversial areas (such as broad topic bans or lengthy blocks).


	'''Suggestions/proposals''' for improvements of AE/discretionary sanctions:
	*Scrutiny of AE should be welcomed. It tends to be a mostly forgotten corner of the project space, but we (the admins who work there) should welcome comments from a broader range of editors, including non-admins. Extra objective opinions might not change anything, but people can have more confidence in the system if they feel they have a stake in it, and we may get some useful suggestions or outside observations which make the process work better.
	*Add a clause to the standard motions/remedies authorising discretionary sanctions and to the log to encourage admins to use the AE noticeboard (and encourage parties to use it rather than approaching an admin directly) rather than acting unilaterally, especially when considering long-term sanctions or actions that might be controversial.
	*Simplify the appeals process, and require admins invoking discretionary sanctions to inform the sanctioned editor of their right to appeal (to AE and/or ArbCom). Perhaps appeals of blocks could be conducted on the blocked user's talk page and transcluded to WP:AE? Regardless, it should be quick and simple to appeal arbitration enforcement actions, even for relatively inexperienced editors, and even while blocked.
	*Arbitrators, especially the longer-serving arbs (and possibly some of the longer-serving AE admins), should approach experienced admins with a good track record of level-headedness and ask them to consider weighing in at AE from time to time. Hopefully this would deepen the pool of admins who handle AE requests and possibly bring in some fresh thinking and different perspectives.
	*Arbitrator participation a AE in an advisory role. Where something contentious or novel is being proposed, especially when the editor in question or their supporters are claiming that the scenario was no one foreseen by ArbCom during the relevant case, it may be useful to hear from an arbitrator. This could be either an individual arb's perception of the case or one arb speaking for the committee.
	*Periodical review of discretionary sanctions. Every few years, ArbCom (or perhaps an ''ad hoc'' body appointed by them) should review discretionary sanctions in a given topic area to evaluate whether i) they are having the intended effect, ii) they are still necessary in that topic area, and iii) whether admins' enforcement of them is in line with achieving the aim the committee had in mind when authorising them.
	—] \| ] 16:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
	:{{small\|Amended. ] \| ] 16:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)}}

	:: HJ: Thank you very much for your submission. This will usefully inform the decisions we need to make at the end of this review. ] ]] 12:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

	== Now this is odd ==

	I don't remember seeing anything before:
	<blockquote>3. , , and are subject to Standard Discretionary Sanctions, indefinitely. This may be appealed to the community not less than one year after they become effective. </blockquote>
	It seems that something is meant to apply to individuals without regards to a case or a topic. —] (]) 12:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
	:When ArbCom does it they have called it probation or phrased it slightly differently differently. I know there is an example but I can never remember it. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

	== ANI discussion ==


	There is a discussion at ANI about this topic. The thread is ]. —] (]) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

	== Alerts/notifications: to log or not to log ==

	This has been a recurrent issue, and there's been some discussion among arbitrators. So where are things up to?<p>* '''Alerts/notifications''': these will likely be vanilla notifications than a topic is covered by discretionary sanctions and that misconduct within the topic can leave someone open to sanction. Someone cannot be sanctioned purely because they have been notified: they have to engage in misconduct AFTER they have been notified. While they will not be appealable, they do not carry any stigma.<p>
	* '''To log''': The arguments in favour of logging alerts are:<ol><li>It makes life much easier for enforcing admins to have a central reference point;<li>central logs will highlight abusive/trolling notifications;<li>if there isn't a central log, people will create their own unofficial ones.</ol><p>
	* '''Not to log''': The arguments against logging are:<ol><li>it upsets people being on a central list as it carries a stigma;<li>it makes someone a target;<li>as it cannot be appealed it's a permanent blot on their copybook (a sort of "block lite" I suppose).</ol>
	Let's have arguments for and against please.  ] <sup>]</sup> 19:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

	*Copy-pasting comments I've made elsewhere:
	:I strongly favor not logging notifications. Logging is more trouble than it is worth, and scrapping it would solve several recent incidents I'm aware of (and similar ones I probably don't know about) where the notified party took offense at having the notice "officially logged". I guarantee that each "side" in any dispute knows whether the people on the other side have been notified or not, and will joyfully link to the notification if needed. The change to the wording (no longer "warnings") is a tremendous improvement, but scrapping the logging of notifications would be even better.
	:I suggest thinking of it like an edit warring notice; AN3 sees a lot more action than AE, and the reporting party is relied on to provide a diff of a notice, and it generally works.
	:The problem is, as clear as we try to be, and as carefully as it is worded, notices are going to continue to be used occasionally as weapons by opposing parties, much as an edit warring notice is often used as a weapon by the other edit warrior. But there's less "sting" involved in an EW notice, and I believe that's largely to do with the lack of official logging. No one asks for an EW notice to be "vacated". Let's take the sting away from DS notices too; the notification will still be there. If someone appears to be using notifications as a harassment tool, we can address that the same way we might address someone using EW notices as a harassment tool.--] (]) 19:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	*There must be a distinction between the editor who is merely going about their normal day-to-day activity and happens to edit a contentious article, and an editor who focuses on a topic that happens to be contentious. Logged warnings against the former are highly inflammatory, while they generally should apply to the latter. If there is no objective way to distinguish the two cases, there should be no logs because claiming "don't worry, we tar everyone who edits this article with the same brush" is at best misguided. ] (]) 20:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	*My view is that logging is far better than the alternative, which only gives more weight to people using notices as cudgels in debate. The Committee has been working on removing the stigma from the notifications, but there's only so much we do as long as the community keeps on calling them warnings or lending them such a stigma; I suppose you can't just say 'you're wrong', but a notice that you've been notified of sanctions in an area ≠ some misapplied block on your log, and we (the collective we) should stop acting that is the same. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 20:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	* I believe there should be no logging until an uninvolved admin determines that a user has been behaving badly. At that point a warning could be logged. It can then be followed with a sanction if the behavior recurs. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	*I tend to agree with Jehochman. If we are no longer treating alerts like warnings then they should not be logged. But if as a consequence of misbehaviour after an alert an editor is warned/admonished that should be logged. <br>The process question then is what implication does this have for enforcing admins. Well if the edit summary was always the same or similar a post to a user page would be quickly found in the last 999 edits. So we could make a template that has a standard edit summary--] <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	*No logging. I agree with ]; his comparison with the way edit warring notices function (=better, and without any logging) is compelling. ] \| ] 21:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC).
	*On balance, I think that the hassle associated with logging alerts/warnings/etc outweighs the benefit of doing so. It is too easy to (mis)use disputes and appeals, etc., about these notifications as a sideshow that distracts from the core issue about whether there is actionable misconduct in a topic area. We should instead adopt Cailil's idea of recommending a standard edit summary (e.g. "Discretionary sanctions alert"), which can be searched for in talk page histories. We should also consider expanding the fourth criterium for receiving alerts, "through their actions, clearly demonstrated that they are already aware that the area of conflict is under discretionary sanctions", with something like "through their actions, or by participating in discussions in which discretionary sanctions are mentioned ...". This would enable administrators to ascertain relatively easily whether editors know about discretionary sanctions even without referring to a log. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	*The best way to handle this is with a bot. When someone edits an article under DS for the first time, a message is automatically posted to the user's talk page. The bot can take care of logging, if desired. This also makes the process impersonal, which is better in this case. ] 21:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	*I agree with Johnuniq's point that there must be a distinction between the editor who is merely going about their normal day-to-day activity and happens to edit a contentious article, and an editor who knowingly focuses on a topic that is contentious. Some editors have tens of thousands of edits. Myself, I have nearly 20,000 edits over the course of almost 5 years. I've participated in dozens (hundreds?) of dispute resolution discussions, some of which were at AE, others where discretionary sanctions came up. I don't remember them all. According to the way that this is worded, such editors can be sanctioned without warning for a single innocent mistake or even a temporary lapse of judgment (perfection is not required). It doesn't seem realistic to expect editors to recall every single discussion that they've ever had on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	** I would submit that all articles under DS should have a prominent editnotice regarding DS. In my proposal of a bot that handles all talk-page notices, a user re-editing a DS article after some time interval would receive the notice again. ] 23:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	*As I wrote somewhere above, I don't see any useful purpose in logging alerts. Some people are still writing as if an alert is an admonition or somehow unfriendly. It should instead be thought of as useful, friendly information and be worded as pleasantly as possible. Receiving an alert should carry no stigma whatever. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	::I find it chilling that a last-notice-before-block notice, that bypasses normal talk page discussions and the official warning policy, would be referred to as "friendly". —] (]) 07:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	::: That's because you don't understand what is being proposed. There is no "last-notice-before-block" aspect to it whatever, nor is anyone proposing to bypass discussion. I suggest you read the proposal again. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::Answered below; the new proposal has no such language. —
	*] are a cultural construct. ArbCom cannot simply ''announce'' upon high that such alerts/warnings/notifications/whatever-we-call-them "''do not carry any stigma''". Only culture can make such a determination. To think otherwise is the height of hubris. ] (]) 01:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:: Actually it is exactly the sort of thing that should be made clear. What it means is that nobody can correctly say "you were warned about your behavior" merely on the basis that you received the standard alert. All they can correctly say (in the absence of more information) is "you were notified of the presence of discretionary sanctions". ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	*While I'm somewhat agnostic on how specifically to do it, we need a good way of determining whether or not an editor can reasonably be said to have been made aware of discretionary sanctions in an area. Notifications are ''not'' an indication of wrongdoing, they're just a heads up to say "Hey, this is a particularly sensitive and touchy area, and so there are some special restrictions in place." I think that's far superior to having an editor whacked out of the blue with discretionary sanctions when they weren't even aware such a thing was applicable. That being said, I think there are several ways we can reasonably presume an editor is aware of the discretionary sanctions, including (but not necessarily limited to):
	**The editor has explicitly referred to the applicability of DS in a remark or edit summary, or has replied to another editor's remark in which that editor did so.
	**The editor has joined conversations regarding clarifications of the DS or alleged violations of them.
	**The editor has been explicitly notified of the DS.
	**The editor has made reasonably significant edits or reverts to a page containing a prominent editnotice specifying the applicability.
	*What I would be categorically opposed to is allowing the "warriors" on either side be in charge of keeping track of who has been warned on the "other side". Logging is infinitely preferable to that. But regardless of our ultimate solution, ''notices aren't warnings''. Indeed, sometimes an AE request is closed with an official, logged warning that an editor did violate the sanction, and that while no action will be taken at that time, future violations will lead to harsher remedies. Those warnings may be applied only by an uninvolved admin and are logged essentially as sanctions (and somewhat are a type of suspended sanction, since they are there to indicate that future violations will be treated more harshly as a repeat breach). They are very distinct from the simple "Hey, be careful, there are some special considerations when editing here" notices. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	What's with all this templating? If you want people to know that an article is under special conditions, why not just tell them? And let them know what the conditions are so they can act accordingly. Here is an ] where editors were starting to cycle a policy page without getting prior consensus. A note was posted on the discussion itself--as a reminder to everyone*--and the discussion was able to go forward.—] (]) 16:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:*People can (and do) edit articles without going anywhere near the talk page. And many of those that do simply don't read all the clutter at the top of the article's talk page. A talk page notice is therefore considerably less effective at drawing someone's attention to something than a message left on the editor's talk page.  ] <sup>]</sup> 18:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:**If someone edits a page, the edit is either a problem or not a problem. If an edit is not a problem, why chase after some good-faith editor with a "last notice before block" template slammed on their talk page. If the edit is a problem, what good is a template that links to a 300-page document of closely written insider jargon? The edit needs to be reverted, without the user who did a good-faith revert being dragged off to WP:AE. And the the user who did the problem edit needs to be brought into the talk page consensus discussion.—] (]) 05:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::: Where did you get the "last-notice-before-block" idea from? It is not present in the proposal. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	{{cot\|Collapse ... no, it hasn't been removed. It's elsewhere,  ] <sup>]</sup> 10:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)}}
	{{outdent}}
	Zero, Compare with the language of the ]:
	{{quotation\|Discretionary sanctions are a fast-track procedure to tackle misconduct within defined topic areas and/or to prevent disputes from within the defined topic area overflowing freely into other areas of the encyclopedia;
	#Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning;
	#Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;
	#Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;
	#Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process;
	#Discretionary sanctions have an established and clearly defined appeal process, which must be adhered to;
	#Overturning arbitration enforcement actions out of process is strictly prohibited per longstanding principle;
	#Discretionary sanctions should be used with caution where the community is already dealing with the specific issue through dispute resolution processes.}}
	Now check ]. This section has been removed completely. Imposing sanctions is totally at the whim of one arbitration enforcement admin. The only requirement for flushing the toilet is that the user in question has been informed of the existence of an arbcom case on the topic. Regards, —] (]) 09:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	{{cob}}
	So, Roger Davies, I'm confused. Are you saying that a vital part of the proposal is not available for the community to examine? How then can anyone be asked to make a meaningful evaluation? —] (]) 11:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:: Now I get your point, I think. Previously, in principle, miscreants had to be warned about their behavior first, then could be smacked if they misbehave again. Under the new proposal they can, in principle, be smacked the first time they misbehave provided they knew there were sanctions in place. Did I understand you? I'm not sure that the difference will be as great in practice as you seem to think (the words "repeated or serious" will cover most cases), but you could start a new section of this page to discuss it. This section is about whether alerts should be logged or not, which is a separate issue. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	* I personally support continued logging. I agree in particular with the third argument for logging in particular: regardless of whether notices are logged centrally, I think people will continue to keep these logs one way or another. Centralizing them will ease the job of trying to track them down. <span style="font-family: Georgia">– ] <small>]</small></span> 05:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	*Unlike the other warnings, DS alerts (which are not really warnings in the new draft) are required for the imposition of a sanction. By contrast, the other warnings are not necessarily a requisite for the imposition of blocks: in certain cases, a restriction may be imposed even on an editor who was never warned that his behaviour was disruptive, whereas nobody can be sanctioned unless he was aware that DS had been authorised for the topic area he was editing in (usually as a result of a warning, although all other relevant circumstances may be taken into account to determine whether a person knew about them). <p>As a result, logging these alerts is quite useful, for it makes it possible for a person starting an AE thread to link to the relevant diff without having to waste a lot of time searching (for example, the alert may have been delivered years before or the editor in question may have switched accounts some time after the alert and before the current AE thread or other cases which would make it difficult to locate the diff). <p>Doing away with logging would, therefore, in my opinion be problematic, because it would make that much more difficult to find the edit containing the alert; and I predict that if we were to scrap logging, quite soon the various parties would move the log to their userspace (or, at least, those parts they consider particularly useful...); so, basically, we'd be moving possible disruption from one place to another (and one where, by the way, an editor is generally granted considerable leeway). <p>The way I understand it, the main problem is the location of the log: right now, people who have been informed that DS have been authorised are lumped together with those who have actually been sanctioned as a result of those DS, which may give the impression even the former somehow misbehaved. In my opinion, the most efficient solution (the one which would allow us not to lose the advantages of logging the alerts, while trying to minimise the disadvantages) would be to move the log to its own page, with a prominent notice at the top reading something along the lines of "inclusion here does not imply any sort of misconduct". <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:* In practice, it's the expectation at ] that warnings are made before reporting editors: the reporting template expects a diff, and I've observed reports declined due to lack of warning. <small>]</small> 10:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:** The four of us (Noetica, SMcCandlish, OhConfucious, and myself), were with any diffs, although we were plainly accused of misconduct. Apparently this is how WP:AE works. The was that we had given evidence without being admins. —] (]) 11:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::*You may be misremembering (after all, it was a year ago). The warnings did contain a diff and the reason was not for giving "evidence without being admins" but for "using AE as a soapbox". Which may also, perhaps inadvertently, be what you're doing here. If you have any further meta comments, could you please make them in a separate section?  ] <sup>]</sup> 14:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::No, there is no "misremembering". I have provided the to the exact wording. This is the exact : to accuse someone of egregious misconduct without evidence. If anyone thinks the link provided here contains some smoking gun that I violated some policy, it doesn't. It doesn't even show that I have ever edited in that subject area. It's a link to the archive of the case Apteva filed against Noetica.

	:::::As for the rest, I will answer on the appropriate talk page. —] (]) 11:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
	::* {{ping\|NE Ent}} I don't question that (mainly because I've not been active there in quite a bit); however, the difference is that if I were to block for edit warring an editor who hadn't been warned beforehand, the block would still comply with policy (granted, it might be considered ill-advised, but it would still be valid), whereas if I were to impose a discretionary sanction on an editor who had never been given an alert, the restriction would be invalid, because one of the requirements for its imposition has not been met. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 21:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	*I fall with Salvio here. The separation of the log might help easy the stigma that exists (hopefully in conjunction with an explicit notice). That being said as a result of the requisite nature of notifications, I find it important that they are logged somwhere. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 18:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	{{talkquote\|text=If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a calf have? Four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it so.\|source=] (attributed)}}
	If notifications are logged centrally, and such logging is a prerequisite to sanctions, they're going to be treated as stigma carring warnings, regardless of what the committee may say. Which means editors will appeal them to ] and the committee itself, no matter what editors / admins / arbitrators may state. Waste of time, and aggravation, for all involved.
	* The first primary argument for central logging seem to be its lack will result in editors keeping hitlists against their wiki-enemies. So explicitly forbid editors placing diffs / links / notes of warnings on-wiki. (Obviously the talk page histories will serve as logs).
	* The second argument seems to be concern admins would not know an editor has been warned. The Ent answer is .... so what? If in doubt, warn 'em again. If an editor is notified for ] in January for saying ''Obviously, Ents are feebleminded'' and no one remembers / cares in July when they say ''] are dumber than ],'' it ain't gonna hurt anything if they "escape" sanctions with another notification. The '''true''' warriors demanding Misplaced Pages post TRUTH{{TM}} in a DS area will be persistent enough that someone will remember the notification and dig out the diff when reporting their misbehavior <small>(editor)</small> or imposing a sanction <small>(editor with sysop)</small>. <small>]</small> 01:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

	*'''Call for ArbCom and the community to back the reform.'''<p>I know several editors who have suffered emotional distress from the current DS system; thus I'm keen for the proposed reform to proceed. Leaving aside centralised logging for a moment, it's surprising that the proposal has been the subject of so much bloat. The new system comprises all of the elements of a much fairer, more functional system that will do two things at once: (i) enable the project to manage hot-button topics with limited resources; and (ii) remove the personal, punitive smell that surrounds the DS system.<p>I'm satisfied that converting warnings to alerts is not just playing with semantics, and that a key motivation is to protect both regular editors of a contentious topic and those who might wander unknowingly into it and edit without realising that they might be exposing themselves to accusations of bad behaviour in context. As has been said above, one box of many at the crowded top of a talkpage alerting editors to take care is not likely to be noticed by many editors. <p>I'm not persuaded by arguments that the new system will stigmatise; rather, it's a practical measure that once introduced will probably be seen as an obvious improvement and one that took too long to come. Nor am I persuaded by the view that an alert will expose an editor to subsequent sanction by an admin without due process.<p>So I encourage people to get behind the reform proposal. Test antagonistic views against the facts, by actually reading through the text of the proposal—I fear there's misinformation abroad.<p>Quick dispatch of this matter will allow the new committee to knuckle down and concentrate on further reforms. I encourage the committee to set a deadline and get it over and done with. We elect you partly to reform the system, not just to keep the seat warm. ] ] 10:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

	*'''Oppose''' the routine adding of random editors to cases. This system is too easily trolled; someone who is trying to game the system need only find one clueless admin, or shop enough forums, and sooner or later, the law of averages will catch up, and something will stick. New names should be added to cases in the same way the original names were added: in a comprehensive RFCU-similar forum that gives users the chance to participate before being sanctioned, to have any evidence presented against them, and to answer to any implications of wrongdoing. —] (]) 14:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

	== Site bans over blocks ==

	I brought this up before but another thought just occurred to me. Is it currently stands there is no authorisation for me to block an editor under discretionary sanctions but there is an authorisation for me to ban them. So this ''would'' mean that if I were dealing with a violation of discretionary sanctions imposed 1RR I would need to ban them for 24 hours because I'm not authorised to just block. This seems to present (at least to me) a strange situation where removing someone from being able to particpate in the community for short periods of time, as opposed to technically preventing them from editing, becomes the norm (including for discretionary sanctions). So my suggestion, would the arbs please consider changing "site bans" to "blocks" under ''Individual sanctions''? <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 05:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:I think that a block would probably be reasonably authorized under "other measures necessary...", but I also see your point, and a site ban is a more significant and generally longer-term remedy than a block. Given that administrators normally have the authority to block editors on reasonable discretion, I would see no problem adding blocking as a potential remedy, but would be interested to hear from my colleagues if there is a specific reason this was excluded. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	::Yes, indeed. For simplicity, it's probably easiest to add block to the list. Which I'll do now (even though the lit isn't meant to be exhaustive).  ] <sup>]</sup> 07:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{done}}  ] <sup>]</sup> 16:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

	== Proposal: Applicability of DS should be grounds for permanent semi-protection ==

	I'd like to see the protection policy modified to authorize permanent semi-protection for any article falling under an ARBCOM/DS ruling.

	CON
	*some become grey areas, such as the recent ARB clarification request whether ] falls under the ruling about the Tea Party.
	*various things might be said about "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", but of course, we already have exceptions to "anyone"

	PRO
	*reduces load on strained admin / enforcement resources
	*judging by the many articles under ARBCC that I watch, this would prevent more than 50% of soap and other disruptions
	*would reduce collateral damage, or at least the ''fear'' of collateral damage, to established editors who respond to IP & new accounts when ] appears not to work

	Other thoughts?
	] (]) 15:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

	: Why protect an entire article, and disrupt all its editors, when DS can be used to topic-ban or block the one problematic user? ] ]] 15:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

	::Quite. And from among the articles within a covered area, say the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which includes all articles about politicians, geographical locations etc. in the area) only a small proportion of articles are actively being disrupted. Preemptive semiprotection of all of them would be massive overkill. Of course, individual articles can be protected as a discretionary sanction if needed, but generally it's better to target the few user(s) who are causing the problem. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:35, 4 February 2023

This Misplaced Pages page has been superseded by the new discretionary sanctions procedure that was enacted by the committee as a result of this consultation and is retained primarily for historical reference.

Shortcut

WT:AC/DSR

Discretionary sanctions is a remedy used by the Arbitration Committee in final decisions regarding problematic topic areas. This text is currently used as the remedy. This was a consultation on replacing the text with this new remedy.

This final round of consultation ended on 29 March 2014.

29
Mar

Thank you for your comments on this final, third round of consultation about the draft new remedy. We will now implement new suggestions made here, check previous rounds of consultation for old suggestions that still need implementing, and make final copyedits to the draft. The committee will then vote on adopting the new remedy in April 2014. AGK 13:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Earlier drafts

Comments made during the consultation of the first draft have been archived to /Archive 1. Feel free to cite that page in comments on the second draft. 23:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Earlier comments made during the consultation of the second draft have been archived to /Archive 2. Issues with the second draft that are still being discussed remain on this page. 13:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

More comments from the second draft consultation have been archived to /Archive 2. Issues with the third draft are now being discussed on this page. 12:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from the third draft consultation have been archived to /Archive 3. The consultation has ended. 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of current draft

All current discussion has been archived, and the consultation has ended.

Category:

Inactive project pages