| Revision as of 00:31, 7 September 2022 editL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators27,344 edits uhh?← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:14, 7 December 2022 edit undoL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators27,344 edits testing?Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Through the ], the Arbitration Committee has enacted the following proposals: | |||
| {{textdiff | |||
| {{cot|1=Language}} | |||
| |1=<nowiki>If an administrator blocks a user based on information to which not all administrators have access, that information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee before the block to ensure that the information is recorded in the event of any appeal.<ref name="nonobvious">Administrators are also encouraged to do the same where their interpretation of on-wiki evidence might not be obvious to an administrator reviewing an unblock request—for instance, a ] block justified by subtle behavioral "tells".</ref> Evidence supporting these blocks must be made privately available by the blocking administrator to any uninvolved administrator upon request (for the purpose of peer review or appeal). In the event that the blocking administrator is unavailable to transmit the evidence, the Arbitration Committee will do so. These blocks ] as "appealable only to ArbCom" and are reviewable by any uninvolved administrator. | |||
| The ] (DS) system will be renamed "contentious topics" (CT), and restrictions placed within the DS system will be referred to as "contentious topic restrictions". | |||
| If the blocking administrator is unwilling to share this evidence with any uninvolved administrator upon request, the administrator may not issue a block. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. Instead, the administrator should request action from the Arbitration Committee, or from the Checkuser or Oversight team, ]. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| A separate set of requirements apply to administrators holding checkuser or oversight privileges. Those administrators may block users based on non-public information accessible only to checkusers and oversighters without emailing the Arbitration Committee. This may include information revealed through the CheckUser tool, edits that have been suppressed ("oversighted"), and information recorded in the ]. These blocks are considered to be Checkuser or Oversight actions, as appropriate, although the technical action to issue a block is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee.</nowiki> | |||
| {{cot|Nutshell}} | |||
| |2=<nowiki>If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the ] or a ] or ] for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. | |||
| Contentious topics are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project. Administrators are allowed to impose ] on editors who do not follow ] within contentious topics. Administrators are also allowed to set ] on pages within a contentious topic to prevent inappropriate editing. | |||
| An exception is made for administrators holding ] or ] privileges; such administrators may block users based on non-public information revealed through the checkuser tool, or on edits that have been suppressed ("oversighted") and are inaccessible to administrators. As such, an administrative action is generally viewed to be made in the user's capacity as an oversighter or checkuser, although the action itself is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the ].</nowiki> | |||
| }} | {{cob}} | ||
| {{cot|Lead section}} | |||
| A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as '''contentious topics''' (abbreviated '''CT'''). These are ] topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee.{{efn|The community has its own version of a contentious topics system. These are most often referred to as ] (GS), but are sometimes referred to as community sanctions or community discretionary sanctions. }} Not all topics that are controversial have been designated as contentious topics{{snd}}this procedure applies only to those topics designated by the Arbitration Committee (]). When editing a contentious topic, Misplaced Pages's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Misplaced Pages administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project. | |||
| {{anchor|expectations}} | |||
| <div style="border: 1px solid grey; background-color: #fffff6; border-radius: 0.5em; padding: 10px;"> | |||
| '''{{vanchor|Editing a contentious topic}}''' | |||
| Within contentious topics, you must edit '''carefully''' and '''constructively''', refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and: | |||
| * adhere to the ]; | |||
| * comply with all applicable ]; | |||
| * follow ]; | |||
| * comply with any ] in force within the area of conflict; and | |||
| * refrain from ]. | |||
| You should '''err on the side of caution''' if you are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. | |||
| </div> | |||
| Within contentious topics, administrators have the ability to set ] (restrictions on editing by particular editors) and ] (special rules on how particular pages can be edited). Some of these abilities may be exercised by a single administrator while others require a consensus of administrators. All editor and page restrictions may be appealed. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| {{cot|Awareness}} | |||
| When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using template. Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert, and these templates may not be placed using a ] without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee. When alerting an editor who has previously received any contentious topic alert, the template may be used, but any message that conveys the contentious topic designation is acceptable.{{efn|Editors should exercise caution before re-alerting an editor to the same contentious topic as a previous alert, as there is a presumption that an editor remains aware.}} | |||
| If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing a designating contentious topic when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a ]) should be imposed.{{efn|Edits made before an editor was aware of a contentious topic designation may still be considered as part of a pattern of behavior in future enforcement processes if those processes primarily concern post-awareness conduct.}} Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware but may attempt to refute this presumption on appeal.{{efn|An editor who has not received an alert may also be presumed to be aware of a contentious topic if the editor: | |||
| * Was mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; | |||
| * Was ever ] or ] within the contentious topic; | |||
| * Ever ] another editor to the contentious topic; | |||
| * Ever received a discretionary sanctions alert ({{tl|ds/alert}}) for the same topic; | |||
| * Ever participated in any process relating to the contentious topic (such as a request or appeal at the ] ("AE"), the ] ("AN"), or an Arbitration Committee process page (] and subpages); | |||
| * Has placed a {{tl|Ct/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or | |||
| * Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.}} | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| {{cot|Appeals and amendments}} | |||
| All contentious topic restrictions (and ]) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. | |||
| The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: | |||
| #ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; | |||
| #request review at the ] ("AE") or at the ] ("AN"); and | |||
| #submit a ] ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by ]. | |||
| ===Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction=== | |||
| Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if: | |||
| *The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator;{{efn|This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.}} | |||
| *The contentious topic restriction was imposed by a single administrator and it was imposed or last renewed more than a year ago; or | |||
| *An appeal is successful (see below). | |||
| An appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: | |||
| *a '''clear''' consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, | |||
| *a '''clear''' consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, | |||
| *a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. | |||
| Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. | |||
| === Standard of review === | |||
| ==== On community review ==== | |||
| Uninvolved administrators at the ] ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the ] ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: | |||
| # the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), | |||
| # the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or | |||
| # the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. | |||
| ==== On Arbitration Committee review ==== | |||
| Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a ] ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: | |||
| # the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), | |||
| # the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or | |||
| # compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| {{cot|1=Amendment: Appeal timeframe}} | |||
| Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately before the "Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction" header: | |||
| {{tqq|1=A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.}} | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
Revision as of 11:14, 7 December 2022
Through the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process, the Arbitration Committee has enacted the following proposals:
| Language |
|---|
|
The discretionary sanctions (DS) system will be renamed "contentious topics" (CT), and restrictions placed within the DS system will be referred to as "contentious topic restrictions". |
| Nutshell |
|---|
|
Contentious topics are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project. Administrators are allowed to impose editing restrictions on editors who do not follow project expectations within contentious topics. Administrators are also allowed to set special rules on pages within a contentious topic to prevent inappropriate editing. |
| Lead section |
|---|
|
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics (abbreviated CT). These are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. Not all topics that are controversial have been designated as contentious topics – this procedure applies only to those topics designated by the Arbitration Committee (list). When editing a contentious topic, Misplaced Pages's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Misplaced Pages administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project. Editing a contentious topic Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
You should err on the side of caution if you are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. Within contentious topics, administrators have the ability to set editor restrictions (restrictions on editing by particular editors) and page restrictions (special rules on how particular pages can be edited). Some of these abilities may be exercised by a single administrator while others require a consensus of administrators. All editor and page restrictions may be appealed. |
| Awareness |
|---|
|
When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using template. Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert, and these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee. When alerting an editor who has previously received any contentious topic alert, the template may be used, but any message that conveys the contentious topic designation is acceptable. If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing a designating contentious topic when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) should be imposed. Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware but may attempt to refute this presumption on appeal. |
| Appeals and amendments |
|---|
|
All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
Changing or revoking a contentious topic restrictionAdministrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if:
An appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of reviewOn community reviewUninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:
On Arbitration Committee reviewArbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
|
| Amendment: Appeal timeframe |
|---|
|
Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately before the "Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction" header:
|
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).