Initiated by Jytdog at 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

TBAN on discussing COI of editors, imposed as a condition of unblocking me, following indefinite block for violating OUTING (notice of that block provided to me here)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. TBAN imposed here on 8 August 2016

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• TBAN imposed here on 8 August 2016

• Please lift the TBAN

The topic ban concerns all matters related to COI editing. This includes investigations and allegations against other editors, and edits to the COIN noticeboard and its talk page and was imposed in response to my OUTING violation, which occurred as I was interacting with an editor who had an apparent COI.

I understand what I did wrong in violating OUTING and understand the condition in the initial notice, that if I ever violate OUTING again I will be indefinitely blocked with no appeal. If the committee wishes to understand my thoughts on how to manage the tension between the community values of a) protecting each editor's privacy and b) protecting content integrity from advocacy editing (and the value of privacy is far more fundamental), please see here on my userpage and more specifically the subsection here.

During the time of my TBAN I have continued my work maintaining NPOV and NOT in article content, focusing only on content. However not being able to talk with editors about COI has been like working with an arm tied behind my back. There are times when an editor's apparent COI is very clear and the apparently-conflicted editor just doesn't know what to do, and a simple, civil, and authentic discussion (always starting with a request to disclose any COI, followed by education about COI management here in WP if the person self-discloses, and escalation to COIN if the person denies but COI is very apparent -- all done in actual dialogue with the person using the account) gets things on track or allows the community to look at the issue. I have also watched situations unfold in unfortunate ways, where in the past I would have initiated a discussion with the editor (again, starting with a request to self-disclose, and authentically talking) which often resolved things more simply.

What I did wrong in the edit that got me blocked, was not talking with the editor but rather aggressively make a claim at them that even OUTED them; I didn't treat them like a person at all, much like one whose privacy is protected. I get that.

Trypto, I won't belabor this; I hear you, and I do promise. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Mkdw I was indeed recently blocked for edit warring for the first time, after about 100K edits and about 8 years here. I do have editors writing nasty things on my talk page, as you see there now, related to my regular editing.

I acknowledged my aggressiveness issue above. To add a bit more, I would like to offer a statement made about me by User:Robert McClenon who was dealing with an editor who had followed me to the Mediation board. Please see the second paragraph in this diff. (Robert, I pinged you so that if you object to me citing you on this, let me know and I will strike)

I do get this aspect of my character, and I am aware of this especially in my COI work (which is delicate and is different from other work I do here; I tried to note that in my opening request).

Here are some interactions I have had about COI so you can see what I mean about being careful and authentically in dialogue, in these interactions:

• • There was longterm disruption at William L. Uanna caused by CIC7, the self-disclosed son of the subject of the article. This led to an ANI (here) which made me aware of the issue. Surprisingly nobody had actually talked simply and directly with CIC7 about COI in WP, so I did, here and that discussion has for the most part made things manageable, as far as I know. (I haven't checked in on it for 6 months).
  • User_talk:Fowlia#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia
  • User_talk:Dcbennett2#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikiepdia
  • User_talk:Jason_Graves#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia_-_discuss.3F.

More generally, you mentioned that my interest is "recent", but it isn't. I worked on COI issues in my professional life for many years and have thought a lot about these issues here in WP, which you can (hopefully) find reflected on my Userpage in the links I provided above. More specifically, I have made 1620 edits at COIN going back to May 2013 (tool results), 115 edits to the COI guideline going back to June 2014 (tool results), about 890 edits to WT:COI since October 2013 (tool results, and about 153 edits at the Harassment Talk page going back to January 2015 (tool results). It is true that I haven't discussed the OUTING policy much; the issues are too loaded and discussions almost always derail, in pretty predictable ways. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Drmies, don't know how I can say this more clearly than I did in my OP. But I will repeat it. I violated outing. I know that. I know if I do it again, I will be indefinitely blocked with no appeal. And I understand the reason for that, is that privacy is a fundamental value of the community. I understand that only on-wiki evidence is useable on-wiki and that erring on the side of caution is what I must do. Yes. Please also see this comment I made at Jimbo's talk page, about what you are asking about, which has some nuance that i hope can be heard. Jytdog (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

As the recent Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing has shown, along with extensive discussion by both ArbCom and the community, paid editing and privacy concerns are in tension, and keeping a balance between them is very difficult. Several good editors have fallen foul of the privacy issues involved and, distressingly, have been indefinitely blocked for it. IMO Wikipedia, not to say Arbcom itself, is lucky anybody is still prepared to work in this slippery and generally unlovely area, much less an energetic and effective editor like Jytdog. I find his statement above convincing; please rescind the ban. Bishonen | talk 03:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC).

Oppose His treatment of other editors is just as bad as it always has been. See for example [1] as noted by Ethanbas. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

These two warnings ([2],[3]) to Fixuture and these edits ([4],[5], [6], [7]) are a violation of one of his T-bans. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In part, I want to say: what Bishonen said. Her argument is persuasive, I think. On the other hand, if I'm going to be truly honest here (and I am), it does seem to me that Jytdog has retained the tendency to sometimes (and only sometimes, because he is often very courteous in recent interactions with editors complaining at his user talk) shoot from the hip and come across as abrasive. (In the latter category, I'll point to some things he recently said to Opabinia regalis.) So I'm conflicted: is Bishonen's argument more persuasive than the argument that COI is still being handled, and why re-introduce a potential disruption? @Jytdog: it would be helpful (at least to me) if you could make a serious promise here to take a deep breath and think before hitting the "save" button, going forward, OK?

But I very much want to rebut what David Tornheim has just posted above. That whole business with Fixuture is presented by David as being Jytdog violating his GMO topic ban. For those Arbs who do not have a science background, please let me explain that the edits involve the term "genetic engineering" which is a much broader concept than "genetically modified organisms", even when "broadly defined". And the term only occurs incidentally (sometimes just in citations) in edits that are really about other things. It's really not a topic ban violation. And if we say, just hypothetically, that the edits were about GMOs as David believes that they are, then why is David reporting them? After all, he also is topic banned from GMOs, and has already been blocked at AE for violating that ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I read ImperferfectlyInformed's statement with interest, because it goes to what I tried to say about "why introduce...". I tracked down what happened. As ImperferfectlyInformed indicated, it began with Jytdog's edit summary here: [8]. Looking at it without having been there, it doesn't really strike me as all that harsh, depending on one's perception of "spammy". (I've referred to "spam" in edit summaries myself: [9].) The discussion that followed is: [10]. I don't think that Jytdog's responses were bad (and he isn't the editor who comments on the editor rather than on content), but this is what the Committee has to evaluate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The exact issues that you referred to in the update to your statement are currently being discussed at WT:HA and WT:COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with what Bishonen said above. Having worked shoulder-to-shoulder with Jytdog in the muckyard known as WP:COIN, his presence is severely missed. Wikipedia is not improved by maintaining this tban. His actions and words since then, especially in the ongoing debate over how WP:OUTING is currently understood, show that he understands the requirement as it stands. I'm sure there's going to be room for further comments here, but I wanted to get a word in as squarely in favor. - Brianhe (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

We need more active editors within the area of COI editing. Jytdog has made it clear that they will not repeat what got them blocked. Agree that the undisclosed paid editing / outing divide is exceedingly murky but here is not the place to discuss that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog appears to be saying all the right things that we look for in an appeal. I'm going to accept on good faith that he means what he says. He seems to understand how to handle these sorts of situations correctly now, so (as someone who has criticized his behavior extensively in the past) I support lifting the restriction. Echoing Tryptofish, however, I would sound a note of caution that Jytdog's aggressiveness is another problem behavior, and I hope he works on it as he says he will. On the whole, the COIN area is better off with his insight than without it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Bishonen, Brianhe, and others summarized it better than I could. The block and topic ban really surprised a lot of editors that work on COI because normally in practice, an editor that uses a variation of their name in their username that is reasonably linked to an author of a source the editor is using or an article topic is considered a straightforward COI and not in violation of outing at that point due to the username choice. That's beside the point now though. It's clear that Jytdog is one of the main contributors to educating COI editors on how to deal with that and preventing disruption from those editors in the process. The topic ban arguably causes more disruption considering how much good Jytdog does in dealing with such editors at COIN, etc.

While Jytdog can be short on occasion (I echo Tryptofish on reflecting a few seconds before clicking save), this is almost always (I would like to strike the almost someday) when dealing with extended tendentious behavior from other editors to the point where reasonable people can be expected to lose some patience. Then you get editors that do appear to hold a grudge against Jytdog through battleground behavior and following them around, and attention to that context is needed here with respect to David Tornheim's comments. David was one of the editors that was not topic-banned in the original GMO case[11], but was one of the many later DS topic banned and blocked editors that were missed that really needed to be removed from the topic to settle it down.[12] That topic ban was in part due to not being able to let go of battleground behavior directed at Jytdog and other editors in the topic.

Now in his statement here, David is using Jytdog's standard warnings to Fixture to try to get them to stop edit warring as apparently poor behavior. That's frivolous at best. On the vague mention of topic ban violation, GMO is a nebulous term (us scientists rather hate the sloppiness it causes), but CRISPR-edited organisms fall in a different category than GMO (basic intro reading on this:[13][14]) even with Jytdog's broadly construed topic ban, not to mention Tryptofish's comments. Just an additional clarification to Euryalus and others on that. However, by alluding to Jytdog's GMO topic ban, David is violating their own GMO topic ban (not a WP:BANEX instance). Such dancing around restrictions (i.e., clear meaning while not directly specifying GMO topic ban) was also part of the reasoning for David's topic ban. This is mostly outside the context of Jytdog's COI sanction, but since the GMO topic is being interjected, I figured it was worth clarifying for those not familiar with the GMO subject matter and on-wiki history. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The main question in my mind: why is this necessary? Jytdog should able to work without accusing people of a conflict of interest. Focus on the content, not the editor. Perhaps clarifying that he can get involved with COI notified articles would help? I just don't see why you asking/accusing people of a COI helps a situation.

I experienced an abrasive accusation from Jytdog personally in late October (after he was topic-banned in August) when he essentially accused me of being a spammer (by calling the content I added "spammy", see diff) for adding a citation to the corporate website at uBiome. When I reacted with dismay at this unwarranted wording, his response was not exactly apologetic until it dragged out. I'll admit I wasn't perfect in this situation, either - in that I flew off the handle a bit. But the problem is that abrasiveness and poor language breeds unnecessary conflict and damage. Jytdog and I have edited around the same areas for several years without serious conflicts that I can recall, so for him to treat me like that makes me worry even more about the experience of newcomers. I'm hoping that sentiment analysis, mentoring, and additional tooling (with the recent focus by the WMF) will help to solve the problem of abrasiveness in a systematic way, but in the meantime I'm hoping we can hold firm about high expectations.

Before commenting, I glanced through Jytdog's recent contributions and it did seem to me that he was making a bit more of an effort to be courteous and stick to the content (altho it seemed like there there was lots of conflict). I'd rather not see any risk of politeness regressing due to a dive into talking about the editor rather than the content.

Now, I recognize that my comment may seem spiteful, and maybe on some level maybe I hold a grudge. My comment certainly won't score me any points in the small, tightly-knit circle of editors who frequent some of the same places that I do. But I frankly don't care about Wikipedia politics or hurting the feelings of long-term veterans. I'm concerned by the general perception, which is validated by my near-decade of years around this place, of Wikipedia as a hostile environment which pushes newcomers away.

I do not have much to add, since Bishonen summed up the situation very well. The tension between outing and COI has been a concern of mine for many years now, and the current situation -- where, essentially, one must warn editors about COI or paid editing without being explicit about why the warning is being given -- is very unsatisfactory. Given the current restraints, making a mistake is very easy to do, and some allowances should be made for an editor such as Jytdog, who works very hard to protect the encyclopedia from biased editing. I urge the committee to lift the topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The statement quoted above by Jytdog, made by me about eight months ago, still accurately describes my opinion of Jytdog. He is a contentious editor in contentious areas that need contentious editing, and is usually right. At this time, I haven't studied the details of this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

After having read the dispute, I may not be able to provide a statement that is entirely consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, because this case, in my opinion, illustrates a serious flaw in Wikipedia policies. There is a common saying that assume good faith is not a suicide pact. It should not be. However, the policy that the rule against doxing trumps the rule against paid editing comes very close to being a suicide pact. By giving bad-faith editors and spammers a greater right to edit pseudonymously than the right of Wikipedia readers to a neutral point of view, we are subtly inviting paid editors. I support leniency in enforcement of the rule against doxing paid editors because I don't support the rule against doxing paid editors. I don't know if the ArbCom is allowed to take that thought into consideration. I think that paid editors are parasites on Wikipedia and are not entitled to the right against exposure. I support the removal of the sanction from User:Jytdog, but am not sure that my support can be considered, because it is based on honorable disagreement with Wikipedia policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I've changed the name of this request to "Jytdog" for style. Arbs/others, let me know if you have any objections. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support the lifting of the COI Topic-ban, largely per Bishonen. @David Tornheim:, thanks for posting those diffs but they seem to relate to GMO more than COI, and if so are not especially relevant to this ARCA. However please let me know if I have misinterpreted them, as it may require reconsideration of this support. @Jytdog:, Tryptofish is right about the occasionally aggressive tone; lifting this ban won't help you much if you get blocked for that instead. Just some passing advice, good luck with the remainder of the appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• @Jytdog: I do have my concerns having recently seen you start policy based discussions using out of context and non-literal interpretations. There is nothing wrong with trying to read between the lines and sometimes what is not said is as important as what is said. However, when it comes to reading and interpreting policies as they're written, there is much less room for open-ended interpretation or departing from their literal meaning. You also received a block as recently as 15 January 2017 following two warnings for violating the 3RR, a policy you would be well aware of as an experienced editor. The COI policies, particularly the ones around private personal information, have been of great interest to you lately and the effects of knowingly violating these policies are substantially greater than the 3RR. Would you care to speak about this recent block to alleviate any concerns about good judgement and restraint? Mkdw ^talk 01:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Let there be no doubt about the original outing--that's what it was. Jytdog, to his credit, does not deny that, but checking comments by others on his talk page from around that time shows some doubt is expressed. There is no need to litigate this. The naysayers here argue, it seems, that Jytdog has a temper and breaks his topic bans regularly; as far as I know, though, he hasn't broken the COI ban and that's what we're talking about here (nor is that evidence really conclusive, as far as I'm concerned). Now, I am not even that interested in Jytdog's temper; what I want to hear, as one of the arbs involved with that case and a sometime colleague of Jytdog, is a commitment to uphold OUTING (a bright line) and to err, in all cases of unclarity, on the side of caution. In cases of possible COIs this means, of course, that Jytdog cannot share what all he might know (and this may mean he needs to stop himself from going fishing, so to speak), and I think he knows that--but I want to hear it, and I need to hear that in order to support lifting the topic ban. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks dog--and thank you for your service. I support a lifting of the topic ban. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• I am definitely willing to take a removal of the restriction into consideration, but because we are on the topic of outing, you'll understand if I take it quite seriously and need to review things at length. I'm already writing this comment into borrowed time on my sleep, and the next chance I will have to review this is this coming weekend. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
2. Support, though I think the first line would suffice. Jytdog has made it clear in his request that he understands future incidents will be dealt with harshly. Jytdog, thank you for sharing your essays on paid/COI editing and approaches to handling it, they were very much worth the read. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
3. Thank you for your comments Jytdog. Mkdw ^talk 06:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
4. Support though per GorillaWarfare I think the first sentence is sufficient. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
5. Support, agreeing with Euryalus and GorillaWarfare that the first sentence is enough. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
6. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
7. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
8. On balance I support this, though I think there's a couple of important points to emphasize here. For one thing, you got blocked for one mistake, but you got a topic ban as an unblock condition in part because that one mistake occurred in the context of a history of boundary-pushing on the intersection of outing and COI issues. Second, I kind of wish this were more of a "I took a break from the subject and now I'm ready to return" than a "I've been working with one hand behind my back" thing. Working on COI stuff seems to be a lot like SPI or handling unblock requests, with similar risks of getting burned out from listening to BS a lot. Please go slow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
9. My thoughts are similar to Opabinia's. I was not on the Committee last year and do not have much background on the incident that led to the "outing" block, but I will credit Jytdog's assurance that that issue will not recur. Also, in Jytdog's favor is the fact that as reflected on his userpage, he has obviously given a great of thought to how COI and related issues on Wikipedia can best be addressed, and seems sincerely motivated to protect the neutrality and integrity of our content. That being said, I have an enduring concern that in some instances, our editors active in COI-prevention can sometimes lose sight of the fact that many "COI editors" are also BLP subjects or persons working on their behalf to mitigate legitimate article-content issues. In all but extreme situations, such people should be treated with the consideration due both to article subjects and to new editors. In particular, we should always bear in mind how natural it is for a BLP subject, whose English Wikipedia article is typically his or her number one search-engine result, to come here focused primarily on the article content and not on our internal policies and guidelines. See generally, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article; see also Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects. I hope that Jytdog, like others active in this arena, will bear this important concept in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
10. Jytdog has grown from this incident, something we don't see too often. He's acknowledged the issues, taken a step back (relatively speaking, not completely) and reviewed. That, in my opinion, was the intent of the original sanction to force Jytdog to become aware of the issue with the outing that occurred. I'm less concerned than I feel OR and NYB are from reading Jytdog's statements, that said, I do not dismiss those concerns. I'm good with granting this appeal. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
11. Mostly per OR and Newyorkbrad. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
12. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Initiated by BU Rob13 at 03:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Arbitration_motions_regarding_extended_confirmed_protection

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Way back when extended-confirmed protection (ECP) was first created, the Committee developed a motion about how extendedconfirmed as a user right interacts with discretionary sanctions and other specific remedies. Among this motion was a prohibition on individual administrators removing "extendedconfirmed" either as a discretionary sanction or to avoid an arbitration enforcement procedure. At the time, this prevented 100% of unilateral removals of the "extendedconfirmed" flag, as ECP was only allowed in areas defined by the Committee.

Since then, the community has developed its own protection policy for applying ECP, but no policy is in place about adding or removing the "extendedconfirmed" flag. I had assumed the original motion prevented administrators from unilaterally removing the flag, since even removals unrelated to sanctioned areas would have unintended consequences on an editor's ability to edit those areas. Xaosflux pointed out to me that this isn't necessarily the case. I'd like to clarify this. Did the Committee intend for this motion to prevent administrators from unilaterally removing the extendedconfirmed flag in all cases? If no, are such removals acceptable in the absence of any community policy to the contrary / do they fall under admin discretion? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: The original motion by the Committee is linked above as the case/decision affected by this ARCA. The original RfC to allow admins to apply ECP to combat disruption occurred here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Opabinia regalis: I'll preface this question by saying I'm undecided on this issue, so this is rhetorical, not my viewpoint. Vigilant Admin revokes Disruptive Editor's extendedconfirmed flag because they disruptively edited through ECP (e.g. edit-warring through ECP, etc). Disruptive Editor happens to participate in the Israeli-Palestinean conflict topic area in a constructive manner. Almost all IP conflict pages are under ECP solely because of the ArbCom motion requiring that all editors in that topic area have 500 edits and 30 days on-site. What happens now? Disruptive Editor is functionally topic banned from the IP conflict topic area under the existing ArbCom remedy and its current method of implementation. The only possible method to address this would be to remove ECP from any articles Disruptive Editor wants to edit in the IP conflict topic area and handle enforcement via blocks, but that is inconsistent with the current guidance at WP:ARBPIA3#500/30.

  Basically, I see this as under ArbCom's purview because it either turns an existing ArbCom remedy into a de facto topic ban on certain editors or affects enforcement of the remedy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• If the Committee doesn't see this as within its scope, I'm perfectly fine with that, but we still need to know what happens in the situation I outlined above. Does an editor whose extendedconfirmed flag was removed for reasons unrelated to arb enforcement become pseudo-topic banned from the IP conflict topic area, for instance, under current ArbCom remedies? If the answer is yes, that's fine, but it needs to be clear. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Alright, Opabinia regalis. If that's the answer, I'm fine with that. It probably means WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 can/should be re-written to ban editors without the extendedconfirmed flag from editing in the topic area, since that is simpler and more accurate. Future remedies restricting editing in such a way should also use such language. (And to be clear to other Committee members, I'm not and have never asked the Committee to control extended-confirmed protection itself outside arbitration areas - not sure why some people are commenting about controlling ECP. This is about the flag itself, which affects arb matters no matter why it's removed).
• @Mkdw: That's conflating the extendedconfirmed flag with extendedconfirmed protection (ECP). They are different. The Committee should absolutely not interfere with community based extendedconfirmed protection. No-one is arguing that. It's more questionable whether the Committee can/should interfere with removing the "extendedconfirmed" flag, which is currently used as the basis of arbitration remedies. I can certainly understand why arbitrators would say the extendedconfirmed flag is outside their jurisdiction - that is one reasonable view. That's very different from saying community-based extendedconfirmed protection is outside their jurisdiction, which is the only reasonable view on that separate issue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that only alterations of this user permission related to arbitration remedies are under the control of the arbitration committee - and that any other use is up to the community. Even directly related to use against sanctioned articles, administrative removal of this access has occurred, following community discussion, in instances where the prerequisites have been "gamed" (not as a discretionary sanction). My suggestion would be that the community should further discuss the revocation guidelines and process regarding this access group and document the administrator expectations. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the arbitrators so far and say that the Committee cannot restrict revocations of the extendedconfirmed right outside of arbitration enforcement.

With that being said, I am not sure I like the idea of removing the flag as an enforcement measure for either community policy or arbitration. The extended confirmed flag was not intended to be a "special" user right, such as rollback, for example. If rollback is abused, the natural response is to simply revoke the rollback right. However, I see extended confirmed differently: revoking it as an enforcement measure is beyond the role that the community had originally envisioned for it, which is merely a technical checkbox that ticks for editors that have made 500 edits with 30 days account registration.

If an editor is truly editing disruptively (e.g. violating a topic ban, edit warring), we would use a block to prevent and deter further disruption. Revoking extended confirmed to respond to disruptive editing strikes me as a kind of "partial" or "lesser" block, which, as far as my knowledge goes, is unprecedented. Despite the absence of community policy regarding this, I would strongly advise administrators to wait until the community has discussed whether this kind of enforcement measure is acceptable before unilaterally applying it. I don't see it as part of admin discretion. Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

All other user rights that can be granted by a single admin can also be revoked by a single admin. This is as it should be and I believe we are in the realm of unintended consequences here. I believe the committee should act to clarify that its past standing on this issue either now invalid or only applies to arbitration enforcement actions. Again, I don't believe this was the intent but the committee appears to have created policy by fiat, which is not how it works. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• @BU Rob13: Could you please give us links to the policy pages and other discussions you are referencing? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • With regard to revocation of extended-confirmed status, my understanding of the status quo is that it should not be removed as a sanction for poor-quality editing (e.g. in lieu of a topic-ban). However, it should be subject to removal when it was obtained illegitimately by gaming (e.g. with 500 trivial sandbox edits) in the first place; that is a different situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Newyorkbrad:, these are the motions from immediately after last year's rollout of the extendedconfirmed user group and protection level. (According to the history and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions, they were archived to the talk pages of the affected policies, but the links no longer work because the talk pages themselves have been archived; the protection policy one is here and the user right one is here.) Grnklaagheq!%$@# why do we do this, in the alternate universe where I'm Queen of Wikipedia, all arb business gets its own subpage in arbspace so it's actually searchable and doesn't have linkrot grumble mutter everybody get off my lawn.
  @BU Rob13:, your interpretation is how I originally wanted to do it last year (in fact, I wanted to make it technically irrevocable to remove the temptation), but after discussion the conclusion was that arbcom could only regulate admins' discretion to revoke the user right on matters directly under our scope, i.e. AE/DS matters. If an admin wanted to remove the user right due to disruption on pages that are ECP'd for other reasons, it would be up to the community to decide if that's acceptable. Personally, I think that's an undesirable inconsistency likely to lead to confusion (as this request shows). On the other hand, I feel less strongly about revoking EC now that we've had some experience with the system. On the third hand, I'm not sure that my change of view is actually well-informed or if it's just creeping complacency. The proliferation of user rights, and thus of opportunities for admins to try to "pull rank", doesn't seem to have slowed down any. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • BU Rob13 The argument I made last year (which I'm no longer so convinced of) is that ECP would never have come into existence as an option without the 30/500 remedy from the PIA3 case. There was never a community consensus for a new protection level; it was pulled out of someone's ass as an ad-hoc gamergate AE action and worked well enough that it was scaled up the next time a remedy was needed for a topic area beset with persistent, disruptive, and frequently offensive socking. Since the availability of ECP is 100% a consequence of an arbcom decision, that means that a) its general use is arguably still "our problem", and b) the part where arbcom makes policy even though it's not technically supposed to already happened when the PIA3 remedy was passed.
    As for your specific case, I think it's the same as any other user right - if you're disruptive using it for one thing, and you can't/won't stop the disruptive behavior, then you risk losing the ability to contribute even in other areas where you're not disruptive. We don't talk about a "topic ban on templates" if someone edits templates productively but loses their TE right because they edit-warred to put pictures of squabbling children in the ANI editnotice. Just kidding, actually I'd give that person a barnstar ;) Of course I hope that we see a great deal of caution from admins looking to remove the right for any reason other than gross abuse (500 sandbox edits repeatedly posting "I like pie" and so on), because the ability to unilaterally tell another editor "you're not good enough to sit at the big-boy table" has a high potential for toxic effects. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to sum this up, I think there is consensus here that removing the extendedconfirmed user group outside an AE/DS context is out of our domain and up to the community to sort out. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think it's appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to dictate how ECP is applied (or removed) outside of arbitration remedies. As I see it, we only have the authority to impose the limits we imposed in that remedy when they are a part of a set of restrictions created for a particular arbitration case. Applied more broadly, this would be a case of the Arbitration Committee dictating policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13: You do have an interesting point about the possible grey area of an administrator removing the extendedconfirmed flag from a user who has been disruptive on articles that are 500/30-protected (but not by arbitration decisions) and who actively edits articles under arbitration-related 500/30 protection. I think it's reasonable to trust administrators to make this kind of judgment call if and when it comes up, and either err on the side of caution and pursue other resolutions, or at least provide a solid justification for the removal based on the editor's behavior in the articles protected outside of arbitration decisions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• I think we can provide clarification on ECP in regards to ArbCom remedies and sanction areas only, and I'm inclined to agree with Xaosflux that the community must decide how they'd like to handle it in all other situations. Mkdw ^talk 03:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: The main question in your initial statement was:

Did the Committee intend for this motion to prevent administrators from unilaterally removing the extendedconfirmed flag in all cases?

I don't think anyone thought you were asking the Committee to control areas outside arbitration areas, but it's a point of clarity needed to answer your question which asks about "all cases" (including outside arbitration areas). We're saying it's not and why (being it's outside our authority on the matter). Mkdw ^talk 21:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I've been talking broadly about ECP meaning to include XCON, which I could have been more specific or accurate about, because my point is that anything outside an ArbCom area relating to ECP including how the user right is managed should be in the hands of the community. It's for the community to decide, in those cases, whether it's managed at the discretion of administrators or not, and not something ArbCom can answer or motion into existence. The best I think this ARCA could do is highlight that gap and the community could seek to put something in place. That's why I've put an emphasis about jurisdiction. If that makes sense. Mkdw ^talk 03:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that in regard to ECP we do not have the authority to control it outside Arbitration remedies that include it. In all other cases it is up to the community. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13:, I don't interpret the motion as preventing " 100% of unilateral removals of the "extendedconfirmed" flag". If we meant it that way we would have worded it that way. We gave. as you point out, two instances of when it couldn't be removed, "as a discretionary sanction" and "as a means of bypassing arbitration enforcement procedures". I don't read that as forbidding an Administrator from removing ECP from someone whose only edits are sandbox edits. At least for me, one of the reasons for 500 edits is to aid new users in understanding our policies and procedures and to interact with other editors, and 500 sandbox or other trivial edits don't do that. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• While the original motion was designed to handle how the new permission would be handled with regards to ArbCom related matters (with its usage outside ArbCom matters to be determined by the community), its usage and scope has grown significantly since then. In response to your question Did the Committee intend for this motion to prevent administrators from unilaterally removing the extendedconfirmed flag in all cases?, the answer is no (although like OR, my preference as an editor/administrator would for it to have been technically irrevocable). It was only intended to prevent removal as a discretionary sanction or to avoid having to enact a topic ban. It may be worth reviewing the merits of that motion again, as the usage of Extended Confirmed has spread well beyond its original intended use. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with the others. Use outsides Arb remedies is a matter for the community, unless the specific matter should happen to come within jurisdiction for some reason.I'm glad we were able to find something the community considers more generally useful, but that's up to the community. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Initiated by SMcCandlish at 02:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. "Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs." (Same link; the material is short.)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• "Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs." (Same link; the material is short.)

• Amend, to require either: (a) moving of these items, along with the other log actions already moved, into the new DS log pages; or (b) simple removal of the entries if they are not desired in the new log pages. Preferably (b), since similar material does not appear to be routinely kept in the new log pages, only sanctions and page protections, and a few other things.

Leaving behind the notifications and warnings in the "Enforcement log" sections of old case pages, while moving sanctions and all other log actions out of them into the new log pages, has an intensely prejudicial effect against those whose usernames remain in the original case pages' log sections. It gives a strong false impression that: there was a dispute, then those specific users still listed there got warnings, and thus the dispute stopped, because those were the real and only troublemakers. The exact opposite is usually the truth, with most of these cases having a sadly "rich" history of far worse problems and sanctions (often from the case itself, plus years of follow-on disruption) that no one sees unless they go looking in the newer log pages, which the average editor doesn't even know about.

From the original decision's discussion I'll quote the following material about the logging of actual sanctions, because it applies far more strongly to pointless retention of high-profile logging of mere notices and warnings for years on end:

[I]f an editor who is not indefinitely blocked is still around in five+ years, there is a good chance the sanction isn't useful anymore, and if by chance it is, it could be re-imposed. Also, "may be blanked" should be replaced with "shall be blanked" ... The may language is too open-ended, it'll be blanked if someone (who?) feels like it? Courcelles 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Also:

... [The change] is long overdue and will help the committee, the clerks, and the broader community keep track of what areas are under active DS, where there are current problems, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

... [I]t will make it much easier to pick up problematic editors who move from one controversial topic to the next as they accumulate sanctions. HJ Mitchell

These goals are not served in any way by retaining misleading "scarlet letters" from 2 May 2014 and earlier on the case pages to unfairly target particular editors who were not actually subject to sanctions. "You will be maligned forever because of a random date boundary" is just utterly arbitrary, in the particular, vernacular sense that WP:Arbitration is never supposed to be.

I was previously informed (over a year ago) that these items had not been moved into the log pages (or just removed), simply because a clerk had not gotten around to it. Today, moving them was turned down [15] on the basis that the above-cited motion explicitly excludes that material from being moved. Thus this amendment request. We really are in "it'll be blanked if someone (who?) feels like it?" territory now, exactly as Courcelles warned.

Since DS alerts are only valid for a year, there's no point at all in retaining alert notices in the logs (on the case pages or the log pages) for longer, even if ArbCom wanted to retain actual warnings in the log (which is not presently done). From my talk page today:

The courtesy blanking of more than five-year-old DSLOGs already hides old bans from the search engine, even those that are still in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

So, let's just be really clear about this: People who are still being disruptive are getting a form of courtesy and good-faith relief that is denied to those who are not, for no reason but a meaningless dateline.

Some of the intent-and-effects issues that were not resolved in the original motion weren't resolved at that time simply because of a desire to avoid making decisions "on the hoof" or "too quickly". Two-and-a-half years is plenty long enough.

PS: I have not listed any of the "affected users" as parties, despite the instructions in the amendment request template, because that would be tedious, a long list, and likely have a canvassing effect – there would surely be unanimous agreement from them that they don't want to be scapegoated for life over wrist-slaps that happened years ago. [I have, however, linked the usernames of the admins and [ex-]arbs directly quoted, which should ping them when I save this.]
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Given the age of the notifications currently left on case pages (more than 2 years old), I wouldn't have a problem with them just being removed and replaced with a link to the central log (as is in the case page template). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that having the case pages include three-year-old notifications, but omit current ones, creates an undue weight problem. This set-up has confused me in the past, and if it confuses me then I'm sure it confuses others who spend less time than I do on the arbitration pages. I don't have a strong view on the best fix so will defer to others on that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• the change seems reasonable DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Supporting this approach, for a couple of reasons. First, as I mentioned above, I think that opening a broad case about Wikidata on the basis of what was originally a narrow request about user conduct isn't quite the best start. We've had a lot of discussion about case scope over the last couple of years, and while we've sometimes accepted a broad request but given it a narrower scope, I can't think of a recent example where we accepted a narrow request but gave it a broader scope. I think that puts the filer in a difficult position and it has the potential to skew the evidence if the original request sets the tone. More significantly, the broadened scope directly overlaps with an ongoing community process (the draft RfC being prepared), which we weren't asked to intervene on. I'm open to tweaking the details (length of the sunset clause, for example) and I can say for sure that I'd accept a later request making the case that the RfC was foundering or that bad conduct was continuing there. But I think it's reasonable to give that existing effort a shot, with some extra tools to keep things on track, before dragging everyone into a big case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Oops, thought I'd already supported this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
4. For lack of another way to handle it. DGG ( talk ) 13:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
7. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• The last point of the motion must be F, not E.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm curious about the 1-year limit on discretionary sanctions, but other than that this looks like what is needed - a firm reminder that all participants need to behave like mature adults and engage with the discussions in good faith (explicitly including not creating a fait acompli), along with a note that there will be consequences for those who do not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  Mainly a result of consensus building on the list that discretionary sanctions should be temporary until the community decides how Wikidata should be integrated. It's there mainly as a sunset clause. I'm hopeful that next year's Committee will be able to end them sooner (as hopefully the RfC will happen soon). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• This will not work without a structured format, and I still believe a case is the best way forward here. Discretionary sanctions will also make it a free-for-all since everyone who is contributing will be a "vested contributor" and anytime a sanction is placed it will immediately spill over into the appeal venues (think GorillaWarfare's recent block of TRM but worse in terms of the appeal). If anything this motion will increase this disruption that the overwhelming majority of editors who simply do not care about Wikidata experience while the inevitable mess of an RfC takes place. It would be better for arbcom simply to do nothing rather than pass this motion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Unless there's at minimum a formal mechanism for closing the RFC, and a formal statement that the result of decisions there are enforceable, this will just generate more heat than light since both the pro and anti Wikidata camps will just ignore any decisions with which they disagree. While I'd prefer the RFC be structured and moderated—regardless of how anti-Wikipedian that may be—if it's going to be a free-for-all it probably needs to be on the understanding that Arbcom itself or a group delegated by them will act as closers, and that whatever conclusion it reaches will itself become an enforceable Arbcom motion. ‑ Iridescent 20:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • An example from the past could be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. --Rschen7754 23:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• I wrote up my thoughts on similar questions a while back, and some of this may still be useful, I don't know:
  • My recommendations for contentious, multi-year RfCs:
  • Encourage everyone to say more than they would say in a typical RfC. People tend to talk in terms of solutions ... but if you prompt them for more, they'll tell you something about what they see as the problems, and that's the information we need to negotiate something that has a chance of working for everyone.
  • Instead of letting a few people determine what everyone is going to vote on, allow votes on whatever questions gain traction, either through a pre-RfC to decide the questions, or at the end of an RfC, when the closer(s) can lead a short discussion among the voters to set up the next RfC.
  • Allow lots of time. Tough issues often take multiple RfCs, because initially people will be focused on different aspects of the problem, and it's hard to find any consensus when people insist on viewing the problem in different ways. Try to get consensus on one question at a time; after people see that they've definitely won (or lost) on the question that concerns them most, some of them will be willing to shift their attention to whatever question comes next.
  • If several rounds of discussion haven't produced anything, try tackling problems in smaller groups first, such as wikiprojects. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Initiated by Nyttend at 14:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• 190.140.234.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2003:51:4A44:E240:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per WP:IPBLENGTH, IPs should almost never be indef-blocked. I found these two IPs at Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs: 190.140.234.59 was blocked in 2008 for evading a ban placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli (the underlying account is no longer blocked), and 2003:51:4A44:E240:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB was apparently attempting to distribute child pornography when blocked in 2014. Unless you believe that these two are likely to warrant re-blocking, could they be unblocked? No point in notifying them ("hello IP, are you still going to be disruptive?"), but I'll notify the admins who blocked them. Please note that this not a complaint about anyone; I would have asked the blocking admins and not come here, but I know that an admin shouldn't revert an arbitration block even if he placed the block himself.

PS, would the Committee please direct one of the checkusers to tell us what IPs, or IP ranges, are being used by the bots operating on WMF Labs? Back when we had the Toolserver, {{Toolserver IP}} told us to indef-softblock the Toolserver IPs (bots often edited logged out), and that's likely no longer needed. I filed a quick SPI request for the IPs in question, but inexplicably this request was treated like a privacy-violating request for checkuser on a human, not a request for technical assistance with the WMF servers.

It's worth noting that Stefanomencarelli is no longer banned, so the indefinite block on 190.140.234.59 isn't even relevant anymore. That one can certainly be unblocked. The admin which blocked it, Rlandmann, is active. He can revert his own AE action. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: Just as an FYI, the relevant ArbCom motion only prohibits undoing an arbitration enforcement block done by another administrator. (Beeblebrox won't be able to undo the ArbCom block, though, which presumably had the support of the Committee at the time.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• And in response to the PS, see my further explanation of why I declined that CheckUser request here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm happy to remove the indef block on 190.140.234.59, although, the way I read the ArbCom motion linked by Rob13, so could any other admin, since if Stefanomencarelli is no longer blocked, this is no longer "an active arbitration remedy" (emphasis mine) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• The first of these blocks is an AE block, not an ArbCom block, and can be unblocked by anyone at this late date. I expect the second can also be unblocked at this point given the dynamics of IPs, but please hold off until I get confirmation. I'll leave the last paragraph of the request for someone more CU-savvy than I. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• I've unblocked the first IP. Stand by regarding the second IP. I support Rob's comment at SPI that checking a random bot would be inappropriate. Looks like you're working with DoRD on other IPs which have been used by toolserver in the past. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked the second IP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with unblock of second IP, given passage of time. Their advocacy was pretty obvious, if the same user still has this IP they'll be spotted soon enough. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• I cautiously support unblocking 2003:51:4A44:E240:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They were only active for one day back in 2014 and have not remained active since. Given the serious nature of their editing topic, I think they could be unblocked with some monitoring for a short duration. Mkdw ^talk 16:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Enacted Miniapolis 16:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Support with a note for Crouch, Swale that the aim of these restrictions are to encourage them to edit existing articles, in line with standard policies, while staying away from previous areas of contention. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Temp remove, see comment below. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Mkdw ^talk 19:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Mkdw ^talk 08:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

   I wouldn't want to swear to it, but I don't think we would consider actions on Commaons here, although I'd be interested to hear from my colleagues with a longer institutional memory. Doug Weller talk 21:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC) As Euryalus. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

4. I am well aware of their disruptive past and yet supported fewer restrictions, but I support this. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
5. Ok, as per last alert. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
6. I agree with Begoon, but going back to weak support in the spirit of Christmas and fresh starts. Crouch, Swale, please don't test the boundaries of these restrictions. Instead, productively edit existing articles in areas unrelated to your previous disputes. @Nilfanion: the restrictions should stay in place until there's confidence they're no longer needed. Six months of no editing, followed by an appeal, wouldn't provide that confidence (and would look a lot like wikilawyering). -- Euryalus (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
7. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
8. I hadn't seen the latest update from CS till now, but given that they say they'll work within the restrictions, sure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
9. Ok, given the clarification and the season, I'm also giving weak support with the restrictions agreed. Doug Weller talk 19:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
10. In light of the clarification. I'm a little worried about how eager Crouch, Swale is to return to the areas that were problematic in the past, but hopefully he will abide by the restrictions and we can move forward from there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• These restrictions could have been appealed in due time, while providing Crouch, Swale an opportunity to demonstrate their return to constructive editing following their CBAN. The restriction on creating new articles was privately discussed and agreed upon by Crouch, Swale preceding this motion. Given the discussion that is now unfolding at User talk:Crouch, Swale#Arbitration motion regarding your ban appeal, I no longer have confidence that overturning [ending] the community ban is a net positive. Mkdw ^talk 08:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Back to support per this. Mkdw ^talk 00:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Discussion on their talk page shows user unwilling to engage collaboratively in this unblocking process. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• It's disappointing to see that it's played out this way, but I now think that the restrictions need to continue. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, could you please clarify what you mean by 'restrictions'? Opposing here would mean that the siteban would continue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Too many mentions of restrictions stuck in my mine. I meant to say that I didn't think the restrictions would work so the site ban neeeds to continue. Particularly in the light of the comments Callanecc mentions in the discussion section. I'll add that I think it's too late for him to change his mind convincingly. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I should have read my alerts first. He says he would comply with the restrictions. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

@Nilfanion: Thanks for raising these points. For avoidance of doubt, I'd consider an RM for any geographic feature (including human settlements) a likely breach of #2. No particular view on what he does on Commons. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Nilfanion, lots of unlikely contingencies can happen. We cannot foresee how unexpected of clever someone might be. We cannot detect all the possible loophole in a remedy. If we try to take care of the unlikely in advance, we end up with something so intricate that nobody can figure out how to follow it or enforce it. We need to assume admins will enforce the restrictions reasonably, but we cannot imagine all the unreasonable things they can do, or the things that appear reasonable and turn out otherwise. The time to deal with unpredictable events in the future is when they happens. We're not writing instructions for bots, or for early models of robots with limited artificial intelligence. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We restored Crouch, Swale's talkpage access so they could contribute to this conversation. Their comments are here, and suggest they're not interested in editing with these restrictions. This contradicts earlier comments made by them via email. Removing my support vote until this is resolved. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Mkdw, Casliber, and Doug Weller: Crouch, Swale has clarified on their talk page that they didn't mean that they didn't agree to them, or that they wouldn't comply with them [16]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Opabinia regalis, Keilana, Kirill Lokshin, DGG, GorillaWarfare, and Ks0stm: If you get the chance, can you please stop by and vote on this before 1 Jan, so we don't have to restart the count? -- Euryalus (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about the enforcement provisions. I understand that they are "standard", but, given the scale of previous disruption, by the time a fifth block under these conditions is reached, I imagine a great deal of community time and effort would have been wasted. I do wonder if some quicker, less "onerous" enforcement might be better in the event of a return to prior problematic behaviour? -- Begoon 01:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm personally fine with that. I have a feeling enforcement is going to be fairly easy at this stage since the Committee is now seised of the dispute, rather than needing to go through ANI.
    And honestly, I'm not so sure the previous disruption was of a particularly severe scale. The sockpuppetry, of course, was on a large scale, but even that was over relatively quickly; it doesn't look like C,S was engaged in it past 2012, and even then it seems the scale of it had tapered off pretty quickly.
    I mean, I get what you're concerned about. We're extending C,S the opportunity to come back despite what would otherwise be a life sentence; you'd hope C,S would take advantage of that opportunity and avoid any risky edits. But, if we're really honest, people make mistakes sometimes. And recently unbanned editors tend to work under a microscope. I'm comfortable with the additional checks against a return to misconduct being balanced by some leeway instead of the first sign of a problem resulting in the death penalty. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The points Mendaliv made at the end are pretty much why I went with five blocks. Also keep in mind that the fifth block is the maximum, there's nothing stopping an editor from filing an ARCA request after the first, second, etc block if they don't believe that these conditions are working. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Your last point about ARCA is fair, and if the recidivism was severe enough even the first block could be up to a month, to allow that ARCA time to be processed, I suppose. That largely deals with my concerns, thanks. -- Begoon 04:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• A couple scenarios worry me slightly. One is if Crouch, Swale starts a bunch of RMs "I'm not allowed to move it myself, but it should be moved because of X". Would that be a violation of condition 2, as the reasoning is likely to be based on interpretation of naming conventions? I think spelling that out would make things clearer both for Crouch, Swale and the community.

The second is if he is re-blocked, he will likely switch his activity to Commons. That will undermine blocks in the event of recidivism, as it won't force a behavioural change but simply change where the "bad" edits happen. Of course Arbcom can't enforce a sanction on Commons, but should any Commons activity that would violate the conditions (if it had occurred on Wikipedia) be considered at an ARCA?--Nilfanion (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Euryalus:, @DGG: For what its worth I think both situations I mention to be likely. Crouch's message implies he desires to move / create pages. "Leaving work to others" on the former implies opening RMs, and a contested RM is invariably tied to discussion of naming conventions. I agree with Euryalus' take on that, and think that having that spelled out explicitly may prevent any grief (I don't want Crouch blocked for a violation there). Given his history, a switch back to Commons in the event of a block is likely. However as that involves a number of conditional factors, I agree with DGG that there's no real need to fret about it.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If Arbcom grants this motion, and for 6 months he complies by not editing, would Arbcom consider letting the restrictions lapse? I'm now convinced that all Crouch, Swale cares about is creating awful micro-stubs about a myriad places of dubious notability. That was exactly the behaviour that led to the initial block and if that's what he ends up doing, I'd lobby for a re-ban.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I'd need to see 6 months of good editing. If there are no edits at all, I wouldn't be in a position to determine whether or not the sanctions could be removed/suspended. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

From Crouch's various comments, I'm starting to agree with Nilfanion that their only real intention is to get back to the point where they can recommence mass additions of dubious stubs. If the committee believes it's worth a try to unblock with these restrictions, then fair enough, nothing will be set on fire, and reblocks are, as is often pointed out, cheap - but I confess to becoming increasingly pessimistic about the real benefits and long-term outcome. -- Begoon 01:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I know I've been a bit of a devil's advocate here, but I'm happy with the comments from the committee and think it is worth giving him the chance. His suggestions are reasonable starting points, and its possible he will get the confidence to make more substantial contributions from there. If and when we get to the point that the restrictions are relaxed, that's the point at which I may be concerned.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Initiated by Seraphim System at 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [17]

Does the awareness requirement need to be fulfilled before discretionary sanctions are applied?

When User:EdJohnston sanctioned me for a 1RR article in a topic area I was new to WP:ARBAA2, I was very surprised. I had not known that it was a DS topic area. I only later found out about the awareness requirements. When I asked him about he said "I believe I have correctly described the current practice regarding 1RR violations." - I am requesting clarification.

Here is the link to my discussion with the EdJohnston: User_talk:EdJohnston#Edit_Warring_block

I am requesting clarification of the DS procedure. I understand that there is no requirement to warn of individual editing restrictions, but I had not received any notice of discretionary sanctions in the topic area. I am requesting clarification of the following: No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict.

My understanding is that awareness under the formal criteria is required for the topic area before any discretionary sanctions are applied, but that notice of the individual restrictions on specific articles is not required by the decision. If User:EdJohnston's reading is correct, then I believe the summary of the Arbitration Decision at Awareness and alerts should be modified so editors are aware of this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Without going into too much detail, there was no long-term edit warring, I restored an NPOV template that was properly justified and needed to be in the article. I added a refimprove template after my citation needed tags were removed. This is what is being called "long term edit warring". If the block was for "long term edit warring" that would be extraordinary and even less justifiable, but this would not be the place to discuss it.

I understood this as a hasty and passing remark by an admin, who was sanctioning for a clear 1RR violation, but EdJohnston can say more about it. EdJohnston clearly stated that there was a 1RR violation, I understood it to be a 1RR violation and he continues to defend it as a 1RR violation. I thought what happened here was a good faith mistake that needed clarification, so admins and editors would know what was expected in the future.

Long story short, it is especially important in difficult topic areas that blocks are preventative and not punitive. Part of that is editor's awareness of the discretionary sanctions, because intentionally violating 1RR is fairly construed as an intent to continue editing disruptively. If I had been aware of the restrictions, I would have certainly respected them. Admins should not unilaterally modify what has been decided by an Arbitration decision, since most editors will not be aware of their unilateral standards, as I was not in this case. Certainly, the decision as stated should say what it means, and the admins trusted with enforcing it should respect that. But before proposing any modification, I would like to see if there is community consensus about its meaning.Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: My argument is exactly as you said - 1RR is part of discretionary sanctions. See this for example: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#Wiking - formal notice is required for 1RR. Even in cases where there are informal warnings. It has been discussed by the community and amended to clarify that formal notice is required. Can you explain what kinds of cases you think the DS warning template is for? AFAIK, AE has declined to sanction in 1RR cases like this.

(Where is the 1RR restriction logged btw? I can't find it here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Armenia-Azerbaijan_2)

Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ed has said he sanctioned for 1RR and has refused to even explain what "long term edit warring" is when I asked him under ADMINACCT so let's focus on 1RR - an editor didn't have notice, it wasn't logged as AE, and admins/arbs can't even agree on whether it is AE or not. What a mess for an editor to get caught up in. Please get this sorted out. A few points:

• The practical distinction between general sanctions and discretionary sanctions is that the rules are different. You would not want to punish editors who generally follow the rules because they did not know different rules were in effect for a particular page, right? That is what the notice requirement protects editors from.

• I see a lot of comments assuming that I deliberately violated a DS that I knew about, I did not. If you review the complaint at WP:ANS, I even comment on it the first time I see it and offer to self-revert if someone points out the edit. There was no prior discussion or anything, so please stop trying to pretend Ed's actions were routine here. To this day I don't understand how my edits were "long term edit warring" even though I asked for an explanation under ADMINACCT. Not following WP:BRD is not sanctionable. I understand that I violated 1RR, but I did not know the restriction was in effect on this article. These notice rules are in place to prevent abuses.

• I have a different color scheme on my browser, and I think my font was mint green at the time. The box looks green, so probably I did not see the notice. There could be a million reasons why an editor would not see this. If you rely on the editing notices alone, experienced editors are the most likely to get caught up in it. (Bad for Wikipedia.) I already know the rules, so I don't read the fine print on every article and it is not reasonable to expect this. That is why the formal notice requirement is important. (Because in controversial areas like this where discussion sometimes breaks down, the community has put in place extra precautions and procedures in place to prevent abuses.)

I think it does create some unfairness in areas where an editor has previously been active, but the amendment is clear that currently informal notice is not sufficient. Judging from the comments, there may be some will for modification.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I didn't see it. Please compare it to the notices at with all the important stuff emphasized - I think there should be a template at the top of the talk page and the article page, and they should be in a consistent style. It doesn't benefit editors for the look/color of the templates to change from one conflict area to the other. All the DS notices should look the same. It is unhelpful when the same notices have different appearances on different articles. Experienced editors should not have to slow down to read different versions of the same notice they have read 50 times already. Most likely these issues have all come up in the past and ARBCOM decided that a formal warning for the topic area at a minimum was fair.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to also add that it is frustrating to be accused of lying, for no reason. I have managed to go all this time without a single 1RR sanction in ARBPIA. Most of my edits are constructive, including maintenance, vandalism patrol, pending changes review, AFC backlog, GA reviews, as well as just regular content creation. A 48 hour block for these edits?: [18] [19] - even if I had known, I would not have thought it was a 1RR violation, because of the near unanimous consensus among admins at AE that editing long-standing content does not count as a revert.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I can comment that I think even the topic area would be enough, but that it should be given before any DS are applied, including 1RR. The formal templates serve the purpose of making these types of problems less likely and keeping editors cool when working on difficult articles. Editors understandably get upset, some have quit, etc. When I know an area is under discretionary sanctions, I am more careful - I look around to see if there are templates or special notices, I edit more slowly. Generally, we want editors to slow down and edit more carefully in these topic areas, and the formal warnings topic area warnings are usually enough to achieve this. There are a lot of DS topic areas, I don't know all of them, and I don't want to live in fear that I may accidentally edit an article on GMO for example, and get hit with a DS with no warning and no discussion. I do think the font being larger, and the article restrictions being clearly stated, and the individual pages being more consistently templated in some of the less active areas would also help. But the warning comes first, editors should know they are editing in a topic area where pages may have special restrictions.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: The block absolutely was not reasonable, and you almost lost an editor for it, but if I had been asking for you opinion on the block I would have filed a desysop request. There seems to be consensus that the current rules did require a formal warning for at least the topic area. It sounds like you support modifying the current warning system - I don't support it and that was not my intention filing this. I would only support making the protections for editors stronger, I do not support weakening them. I wanted clarification on the current system - it seems patently clear, as the discussion has turned to modifying the awareness requirement, instead of clarifying it, there was an awareness requirement and what Ed told me under ADMINACCT was incorrect.
• If you have not please read my comment to User:BU Rob13 above on why the awareness requirement is important. No editor has asked for it to be modified and I don't think the proposal will receive community support. If a modification is going to be proposed, this should be discussed with the community in a formal proposal, not as a side matter in a clarification request.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• To summarize my position, I think that the current awareness requirement would have been enough to avoid the issue that arose in this case. I have never missed an editing notice when I have been aware of DS in a topic area. I don't think increased page-level notification is necessary and I am not asking for it. A topic area warning would have been sufficient to avoid this block. I'm not persuaded of the wisdom of trying to fix something that isn't broken. That wasn't my intent asking for clarification, I only want to know that I can rely on receiving proper notification of DS when I am editing in a new topic area, so I am aware that I should edit more cautiously if I edit about "Ancient Egyptian race controversy" or the "Shakespeare authorship question" for example. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Most articles are under WP:3RR enforcement, but a few have been placed under WP:1RR as mentioned in the WP:Edit warring policy. This kind of a restriction is attached to a page and applies to all editors of the page. 1RR can be imposed either (a) directly by Arbcom as in WP:ARBPIA3, (b) by individual administrators under WP:AC/DS or (c) by the community as in WP:GS/ISIL. The type (b) restrictions are described in WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions. Under the argument of User:Seraphim System, nobody could be blocked for a 1RR violation for type (b) article restrictions unless they had previously been alerted to discretionary sanctions under whatever decision was used originally to place the 1RR on the page. I take it he assumes he is only under WP:3RR until he gets this notice. This is a novel idea but I'm pretty sure there is no written-down policy that backs it up. I have never alerted Seraphim System to the ARBAA2 decision and I also believe I've never imposed a discretionary sanction on him. I did issue a block per WP:AN3 for violation of the existing 1RR at Armenian Genocide that was imposed by User:Moreschi on 27 January, 2008, as well as for a pattern of long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

In response to Seraphim System's question about logging, here is where Moreschi logged the 2008 1RR on Armenian Genocide. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Checking Seraphim System's block log, he was blocked for violating 1RR on the Armenian Genocide page. When somebody edits that page, the following attention grabbing and clearly visible notice appears: {{Editnotices/Page/Armenian_Genocide}} It is therefore close to impossible that anyone would be able to edit that page without realising it's covered by DS and 1RR. Failing to read such a massive attention grabbing notice would indicate competency issues. In my opinion the issue here is this: The Rules require that anyone hit by a DS sanction receive an individual notification beforehand. The rule exists for reasons of fairness. People shouldnt be sanctioned under rules they dont realise exist. But the above edit notice makes it practically impossible for a competent editor to be unaware that page sanctions exist. In such circumstances letting someone off the hook because they didn't receive a DS notice would be letting them off on a technicality. Brustopher (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet another example of why DS is malfunctional. We were promised another review of DS and how it works/should work over two years ago (and haven't had one since 2013). This "notice" system is deeply broken. While I've recently commented [20] on the WP:GAMING problems inherent in it (people damned well aware of the DS and deeply involved in the topic can escape sanctions for gross disruption simply on the technicality of not having received a notice or their notice having expired), this request raises an equal-but-opposite concern, that gibberish notices someone assumes were understood or even seen may not be by editors new to the topic. This whole thing needs to be scrapped in favor of actual discretion: is the user someone who just now wandered into the topic and did a business-as-usual WP:BRD revert, or is this someone with a long pattern of being an asshat across a swath of related pages?

For an in-depth analysis of issues raised in the last DS review, see User:SMcCandlish/Discretionary sanctions 2013–2018 review. Over three years after the original November 2015 draft of it, nothing has changed [except that section 12 in it (DS applied to policy formation) has been partially resolved by an ARCA enacted on 11 February 2017 [21] (permalink to full discussion) which made most of WP:ARBATC moot and unenforceable].
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:58, 22 December 2017‎ (UTC)

I fully support the idea of a bot notifying editors after they've substantively edited a page covered by DS. This would solve a lot of problems. See some recent previous discussion of this idea and how to go about getting it voted on (ping: JoJo Eumerus).

This should probably be done in an "after X number of edits totaling at least Y bytes of changes within Z amount of time" manner, to prevent typo-fixing gnomes and the like getting DS notices about virtually every DS-affected topic as they go about their cleanup work. (And don't "advertise" the algorithm, just leave it buried in code somewhere, per WP:BEANS and WP:GAMING, or bad-acting parties will just time their edits to skirt it. Maybe even change its timing periodically.) Sufficient substantive edits

Any edits should, however, trigger the bot regardless whether they were made to the article or its talk page, since way more than half the DS-applicable disruption happens on talk pages rather than through direct in-article editwarring.

Also, the {{Ds/alert}} template needs an overhaul to be less menacing and in plainer English. Right now it looks like a dire warning/threat (which is why people react to it as one about 99% of the time), and it makes no sense to anyone but ArbCom policy wonks. Maybe open a page for redesigning it and invite people from Teahouse, and other "editor retention" and "welcoming committee" pages, and Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace, for some consultation on this. It's not like this is the first time we've needed to get a message across without scaring or angering people.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Redaction. I've struck an idea above after thinking on it longer, for reasons explained at the related AE thread in this post. (Also pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus.) The short version: ArbCom and AE have unwaveringly maintained that {{Ds/alert}} is nothing but an awareness notice. No harm can come from simply being made aware that a page one might edit again is covered by DS. If you edit the page, you get the notice, period. Simple, no room for doubt or error, and we'll become so used to them so quickly any perception of them as menacing will go away.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: This is the typical reaction to even going out of one's way to explain that one does not like the DS template one is leaving and doesn't like that ArbCom requires them. Twice I've had people attempt to WP:ANI or WP:AE me simply for leaving them a {{Ds/alert}} at all. The only viable solution other than the bot proposal – or (as I've suggested many times) scrapping this farcical system completely – is to create a page for requesting delivery of {{Ds/alerts}} by uninvolved admins, at which the requests will be carried out in a timely manner and on good-faith assumption – pretty much exactly like how WP:RM/TR works. There is no harm – that's the central premise, anyway – in simply being made aware of something. If people freak out when regular editors make them aware of DS, then either an artificial or an administrative party needs to do it without any interest in the underlying dispute or who the parties are.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the first two arb comments below, is there a reason why we're distinguishing between the processes of discretionary sanctions and general sanctions? WP:GS/SCW&ISIL reads "In addition a one revert rule, which does not require notice..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that average inexperienced editor has no idea what is the difference between discretionary and general sanctions. I doubt most experienced editors do, either. If awareness of restrictions before sanctions are imposed is considered to be a "fairness" issue, I strongly suggest Arbcom/the community synchronize the requirements for both types of sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is ArbCom policy that page restrictions do not require a talk-page warning, as the editnotice warning does the job. As these edits were not done on a mobile device, the user who opened this is fully aware of that. As can be verified by clicking . I wouldn't think Arbitrators were unaware of this, considering they wrote it (sanctions.page) to state:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}).

If it has been found sufficient in all the previous ARCA's I can recall about this, I imagine Arbs wouldn't change this rule suddenly for administrators now. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: @Callanecc: I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, since you've already commented below (seemingly without the realization that ArbCom wrote the policy to be used exactly as Ed used it here). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Then why was this not stipulated at the last ARCA I'm clearly referring to? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Perhaps a motion to add something to the effect of "if an editnotice is used to alert editors of active page restrictions, and the editor has not been previously warned (in the required time frame), administrators should allow the editor at least 5-20 minutes [Committee should decide what time] to undo their offending edit(s) prior to being blocked or otherwise sanctioned" to the alerts section of WP:AC/DS? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I rather like that one too... would definitely clear this up finally. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I refuse to sanction editors who are shown to be using the mobile or visual editors (this is always tagged in the history). Can we not make this an official policy until the devs fix that issue with warnings? Something to the order of: "if the offending edit is tagged as a mobile or Visual edit, administrators should not block for more than 24 hours unless the editor's knowledge of the page restrictions is clearly established"? Or would it be better to wait on the developers to have the notice more prominent in those two GUIs? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

My biggest concern obviously is that putting it into written form makes it rather easier to game the DS system. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I will note I disagree with the use of green for any ArbCom editnotice. I was under the impression we could only use {{ds/editnotice}} anyways, is that not correct Doug Weller, Callanecc, Krakatoa Katie? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, until WP:AC/DS is changed, he had to be notified of the topic level sanctions before being sanctioned. Second of all, a talk page notice is definitely not enough, especially if not in standard color. They are there for lots of reasons - many BLP articles have notices that unsourced statements must be removed immediately etc, so I mostly ignore them. Third of all, any concerns about gaming can be resolved by quickly alerting users who edit the area. @Brustopher, editing Taylor Swift has a similar sort of notice, except it is for explaining BLP policy. I think a topic level notice should be enough to enforce page level restrictions, as it alerts that one must read edit notices in that area carefully. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding bot could place a notice on an editor's talk page after their first edit to a page under discretionary sanctions seems like a decent idea, if possible. My thinking is that the more alerts are placed, the more they become like they're supposed to be - neutral alerts, not alerts to be placed after a violation has occurred. This could be also manually done, using a script to see if someone has been alerted before and for what, so that people, when they notice someone doing a few edits in an area, can easily see if an alert is needed to be placed and do it. As an aside, definitely need to up the size of the "this does not mean anything bad" portion of the ds/alert template by like 5 times, otherwise there'll be loads of complaints if a bot is done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Makes sense. @Opabinia regalis: may just want to make it "semi-automated" - using script to make it a lot easier and a lot more common to put alerts. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

While I don't know Seraphim specifically, it is absolutely possible to scroll right past a notice of discretionary sanctions on a project talk page and have no idea that it's there, especially if you were working on that talk page before it was placed and already in the habit of scrolling past the top to read new threads. This might be a separate problem, but even after reading the page on discretionary sanctions, it's still not clear what they are, how they work or what the editors are supposed to do about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, AE actions are intended to stop longterm abuse. The project shouldn't collapse due to the time it takes for an AE warning. This isn't vandalism. Nor does it require immediate action. If it did, there are other rules in place to get immediate action. Secondly, if a warning achieves its goal of stopping long-term abuse, then it has done its job and is much preferred to arguing over a sanction and whether a notice was given. The rush to apply a sanction is misguided and a form of "gotcha" abuse when it's very clear that any AE sanction can afford to wait until individual notice is given. No admin should invoke an AE sanction without being able to provide a diff of the listed methods of notification listed in the standard AE/DS procedure (no, an article talk page banner is not one of the notifications allowed). There is much confusion about who can place talk page notices and what they mean. It is simply not sufficient or necessary to rely on them. Asking admins to provide the notification diff is part of the heavy lifting necessary to implement a virtually irreversible long-term sanction. If they can't or won't, then it's not worth invoking an AE sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#aware.aware lists the precise number of ways an editor can be informed of discretionary sanctions. An edit page notice is not one of the listed methods. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#aware.alert specifies the precise method to be used to alert an editor. isaacl (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed some discussion below about wanting more input re: alerts and such (e.g., from @BU Rob13:). Typically I've interpreted ACDS and alerting, particularly when it comes to edit warring as it pops up on WP:AN3, as follows:

• If a page already has an ACDS sanction attached to it (e.g., a standard 1RR), I look first to see if there's an edit notice to that effect. If it's only on the talk page or absent entirely, I assume (in absense of anything else) someone might not be aware of it, so if they breach it without any other form of notification or evidence of awareness of the sanction, I typically just add an edit notice myself, send any incidental {{Alert}}s, and wait to see what happens. If there already is an edit notice (and it's been there since whatever breach happened), I've assumed that's fair game for blocking anyone breaching it, regardless of whether they've ever received an Alert in the topic area—though I don't apply any additional editor-level sanctions. For example, if someone violates a 1RR page-level restriction and they clearly should have seen the edit notice but haven't otherwise gotten an ACDS alert, nothing other than a relatively short-term block might come of it, but they'll still get an {{Alert}} from me as part of the package in case they decide to continue the dispute on other subject-area articles.
• If a person doesn't have an ACDS {{Alert}} in the past year and they're involved in an edit war (for example) on an ACDS-able page, regardless of whether the page has active sanctions or not, I typically add an {{Alert}} to the user and wait to see what happens. Therefore, if they edit war on a page that doesn't have an explicit ACDS restriction, is within the topic area, and they HAVE been Alerted, they might get a topic-wide 1RR restriction (but might not even get blocked).
• Regardless of ACDS applicability, if someone's obviously edit warring despite usual, non-ACDS warnings, they get blocked regularly (as a non-AE action).

So the general idea is that edit notices and user-talk-page {{Alert}}s, if "not seen" by someone, are assume-bad-faith within their respective domains (i.e., edit notice for page-level sanctions and page-level enforcement of those sanctions; user Alert template for user-level sanctions/topic-wide sanctions applied to a user). Someone doesn't need both an edit notice on the page AND an alert; it's just too difficult, in my opinion, for people to "accidentally ignore" either the obvious "you have messages" or the "stop! there's an active sanction" edit notices, while it's entirely possible for someone who's even been Alerted to not see the talk-page notice of "hey, there are sanctions for the page attached to this talk page." Thus, a single-page-level sanction (and enforcement action taken in response) are presumed "notified," most reliably, through that page's edit notice, while broad, topic-wide, user-level sanctions (and actions taken in response) are presumed "notified," most reliably, through prior Alert templating and/or recent participation in AE-type discussions in the topic area.

Hopefully that helps? If I'm screwing it up, please let me know whatever you guys decide. :P

--slakr^\ talk / 23:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Naturally I kinda like the idea of a bot re: automatically alerting, too, but there are a couple of hitches I can imagine off-hand (i.e., things I'd raise to an operator before trialling a WP:BRFA):

• It can be a a little complicated to figure out when/if the person truly got alerted previously (or if they meet the "participated in an AE on the topic" portion). There's an edit filter to tag the alert, but if an alert already exists on the page (even if over a year old or in a different topic), the filter might not catch it, plus someone might later clear their talk page, etc.... That said, going forward, if everyone was okay with that minor dumbness in the bot to begin with (e.g., someone possibly getting 2 alerts within a year or something), it might not be as big of an issue in the long run. There's just the appearance of a bright-line with a lot of arb topics, and the Alert template's edit notice (sorry; confusing; "the edit notice alert that pops up when you try to use the Alert template to notify a user") has the perception that "you'll be doing a bad thing" if you over-alert, which is understandable, but also causes like me reviewing a bot to get much stricter with someone wanting to run one.
• Page-level restrictions might be complex and aren't necessarily reference-able by a bot in a unified manner, except perhaps in edit notices. {{Ds/editnotice}} can be used, but then there are also atypical ones like {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} and {{Editnotice GMO 1RR}} and others that might be out in the wild (I believe Callanecc might have felt my pain with dealing with some of these a while back. :P) Case-by-case exceptions could be made for the broad topics, but it might get awkward on the non-standard/free-form sanctions (e.g., 1RR in the context of specific content). Plus, there have been cases where an admin adds a sanction just as a new section on the talk page(!) and you have to play hide-and-seek in the archives to find it (or not find it if one never existed and someone just slipped in the template in the talk header). Either way, in my opinion, an edit notice should be the standard go-to for where a sanction lives, even moreso if a bot's going to be parsing through them.
• Changes to the sanctions on the page might(?) need to prompt subsequent bot messages for the user. For example, say a page starts with a "1RR over content pertaining to his birthday" but then moves to "1RR across the page," would the broader one need implicit followup alerts? The bot would need to track or be aware of that.
• Bots aren't always reliable, and reliance on them for critical notifications may be problematic.
• Bot notification can sometimes be seen as bitey or annoying in general. Even with SineBot people have complained about {{tilde}} or {{unsigned}}, and thankfully I can just say sofixit or "discuss on the talk page," but arb templates are more locked down.

For active page-level sanctions it still makes sense to me to have and standardize around an obvious edit notice, and if someone disables their edit notices, it still seems the onus should still be on them (I mean, if you close your eyes, you still have to stop at the stop sign, even if you don't see it). That said, if edit notices aren't being shown in different UIs to begin with, I feel that's a major problem anyway that should be addressed as a loss of functionality (might need to open a ticket if it's not in our hands to modify it locally).

Apart from the bot thing, though, I've noticed that even people involved in disputes on a page that's clearly under an ACDS topic frequently don't, themselves, use the {{Alert}} (et al) templates, quite possibly because they're otherwise obscure and buried deep within policy pages, and the ACDS topics themselves require a level of conscious searching and discovery + familiarity. Plus, most disputes seem to erupt over simple text issues instead of technical features or templates (once more, the audience isn't necessarily template, policy, or community savvy; doubly so with the mass-popularity topics like American Politics and BLP). So it usually take someone with a lot of experience who's ALSO conscious of what all the active DS topics are AND how to act on them to actually break out the alerts equally and without inflaming the situation, by which point a lot of anger, frustration, and disruption may have already taken place. In that sense, the more automated (or more passive but still unmissable) the alerting process could be, likely the better.

So I dunno. I still think it's a relatively safe/sane balance to have two domains of alerts (e.g., page-level = passive edit notice before taking action, topic-wide = actively {{Alert}} before taking action), but I'm pretty sure someone would be able to make a bot if that route wants to be tried, too.

--slakr^\ talk / 02:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I know that there are talk page templates which add a form of warning box to the edit box. Someone doing a vandalism revert wouldn't see that of course, but might we rig up some template to add some form of 1RR warning to a contested article, and, maybe, also rig it to give a warning on a revert? John Carter (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as Opabinia has wondered about using bots for sending out alerts, there is a mini-conversational thread on WT:AE involving me, SMcCandlish and Thryduulf regarding this; the main counterpoint raised is that having a bot alert everyone making a typofix or something similarly minor may be problematic. I am too sleepy to post the "pro" arguments here, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: The problem is that when delivered to people who aren't actually editing the content (fixing typos, rescuing dead links, template parameter errors, etc, etc) such alerts will either be seen as meaningless spam (and spamming people is never a good thing) or scare new editors away, and anyone who gets an alert while copyediting and later edits content in the area will be formally aware (they've received an alert) but not actually aware as they will likely have ignored the (then) irrelevant message. I encourage you to read and contribute to the linked discussion (and look at previous discussions too) as there are very good reasons why bot delivery to everybody has been rejected previously, and until we get AI-level bots that can accurately distinguish someone engaging with the content from someone copyediting from someone fixing templates from someone engaging in subject-irrelevant vandalism then we need humans to determine who alerts are relevant to and who they aren't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with those who say editors should be notified of individual page restrictions before being sanctioned, because the result of such a rule is perverse. DS authorise admins to take any action they consider necessary for the smooth running of the project up to and including a 1 year block, so long as the editor is formally aware of the DS in place. So an editor who makes two disruptive reverts in a day can be sanctioned by an admin... unless there is a page-level 1RR restriction in place, in which case an extra notification is needed? As I say, that seems a perverse outcome. GoldenRing (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not have much comment on most aspects of this request, but I can give my own experience: I basically never notice edit notices. I have edited for a long time in ARBPIA and my mind just filters them out. I think EdJohnston's block was reasonable, but not blocking would also have been reasonable. In discretionary sanctions areas, unfortunately everyone (including admins) tend to become cynical. If Seraphim System says that they didn't see the notice, it would have been easy enough to warn them for their first offence.

My feeling is that the warning system doesn't really need to be changed (this case was a bit unusual). But I don't have any strong opinions either way. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Rob, just a brief statement on the motion regarding awareness. While you’re at it, it might make sense to remove the bit about not being aware of sanctions if you have successfully appealed a sanction: that’s pretty counterintuitive. Anyone who has gone through the dramah that is a DS appeal is more than aware that sanctions exist. If the last line contradicts it by saying they’re aware if they’ve appealed all there sanctions, it also seems like unnecessary extra verbiage. Not really related to the general part of this thread, but since your amending it, you might as well consider another simplification at the same time. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding point three of the proposed motion (In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict). Must an alert be the formal templated notice left on a editor Talk page, or can it also be a note on an editor's Talk page saying something like, "there are discretionary sanctions on HotButtonTopic page so be careful when editing there" enough? Thanks, Ca2james (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Premeditated Chaos. It's good to know that "alert" is defined and not nebulous. Ca2james (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

My experience with DS relates only to American Politics and BLP. The DS system is not working. Admins are not able/willing to enforce it either by exercising their delegated authority or through the AE process. Admins at AE are gun-shy and unable/unwilling to judge the facts of reported incidents. There's a structural dysfunction in that the editors who are reported at AE complaints are among the most energetic, motivated, and disruptive editors on WP. It's their only way of pursuing their POV's. They're at AE because they've failed to gain consensus through normal editing process and have resorted to various forms of disruption. There are objective reasons why Admins may feel unable to function within this environment.

If DS is intended to be discretionary, then reversals on appeal should be rare and uncontroversial. But what's happened instead is that most DS get appealed, either through jawboning and lobbying the sanctioning Admin or through extensive drama threads on at AN or AE. So AE has degenerated into ANI, but with more Admin time wasted than in the ordinary ANI.

So we have a sick elephant and this amendment request is like doing plastic surgery to straighten its tail. I suggest Arbcom start with a clear statement of the purpose of DS, what is needed beyond normal resolution processes, a clear definition of the DS process and how it is intended to function, and then a set of standards and procedures.

Instead what this request is addressing is a single one of those procedures, which can only be sensibly designed after all the other issues are considered and resolved. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thanks for the clarification. With respect to the question of notification: If the initial sanction against any editor is small, it serves as a warning and should not cause much concern. It's a mild rebuke. It doesn't matter much if some number of the editors who receive a first such sanction are surprised. In the majority of cases, another editor or Admin goes to the user's talk page to convey the concern prior to a block or an AE filing. In case there's good reason why that does not occur, an innocuous initial block -- which could routinely be 24 hours of contemplation, or similar -- has serves the purpose of preventing future lapses. If the problem continues, then the mandated "escalating blocks" are warranted and will not have come without warning/awareness. I don't think it's worth worrying about the small minority of editors who do something disruptive enough to be blocked without knowing their behavior was a problem and without another editor or an Admin warning them. They get a minimal first sanction and will be more aware in the future. It's just more efficient and the cost of the rare false positives is minimal. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Looking at your block log and the WP:AELOG, Ed's block wasn't an arbitration enforcement action enforcing 1RR but a normal admin block for edit warring. In fact in his comment on AN3 he says that you had engaged in long-term edit warring.

  Having said that, it's probably worth having a discussion on whether editors need to/should be individually notified about page-level sanctions before being sanctioned. If memory serves, I think (and this is testing my memory) that the original intention was that editors would not be sanctioned without previous notice.^ However, in practice, this hasn't been the case with admins sanctioning editors who breach page-level sanctions without prior notice (this is particularly the case for 1RR). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

^ In the original version (1) of the 'new' system, edit notices alone were going to be considered enough to make an editor sufficiently "aware" of page-level restrictions. However, in consultation discussions about it, this was rejected and removed in the second version of the draft (see (this summary). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• There are a lot of comments here about what decisions have been made in the past and contradictory decisions at that. I'd suggest to all those who are commenting that evidence of these past decisions (links) is needed, nor vague recollections. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 20:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• @NeilN: Regarding a difference between those specific general sanctions and discretionary sanctions in general. The SCW&ISIL general sanctions were modelled on WP:ARBPIA3 which specifically included language about 1RR applying and that, in that topic area, editors could be blocked for 1RR vios without prior notice. That is, in both circumstances, blocking without notice was specifically approved by the Committee or community. Another difference is that under the discretionary sanctions system an alert expires after a year, whereas with the SCW&ISIL general sanction the notification doesn't expire. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Coffee: Nothing in the bit of WP:AC/DS you quoted says that the requirements of the Awareness and alerts section does not apply to the enforcement of page-level restrictions. In fact, neither the section on individual sanctions nor the section on page-level restrictions state that an editor is required to be "aware" because the Awareness section says No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Only that I didn't think of it then, I was actually looking at the 2013 review page earlier this year for something else so the memories of a previous discussion about edit notices it was relatively fresh. Looking back at threads on arbcom-l from the the AP2 ARCA it looks like the committee was discussing amending AC/DS to make it clear that editors could be sanctioned without being "aware" if there was an edit notice, but that either there wasn't enough of a consensus to do it, or that something else happened and we got distracted. Given the time of year, this might be a motion which the new ArbCom will need to consider. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think anything so specific is going to work. I'm not a big fan of giving editors a specific time limit to do something, as it can com across as an aggressive ultimatum, plus we're volunteers and there's no deadline. Consider a situation where a user makes an edit which they didn't know was violating, goes to sleep, wakes up and goes to work, then logs in to find themselves blocked). Plus any sort of time limit (IMHO) pushes it a little towards punitive rather than preventative. I'm thinking more along the lines the following as a new paragraph in either the awareness or page restrictions sections (not sure which would be best yet, though I'm leaning towards §awareness:

Uninvolved administrators may use their discretion to issue #sanctions (such as blocks or page/topic bans) of no more than one week in duration to editors who breach page restrictions but are not #aware of discretionary sanctions as prescribed above if the page in question includes an edit notice, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), which specifies the page-level restriction in force. This does not prevent administrators using the full range of #Sanctions against editors who do meet the #awareness criteria.

It needs a little wordsmithing. Note that # = link to the section on ACDS. This way, we're giving admins an ability to enforce page-level restrictions without an individual editor needing to be have been alerted (or otherwise aware) but not allowing them to impose any sanction without the editor being properly made aware. Otherwise, we're effectively creating a loop hole where any discretionary sanction can be imposed on an editor without them meeting the awareness criteria as soon as they breach a page-level restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: There isn't really a problem with you commenting in this section. It's really only formal decisions (e.g. motions, declining request) where there's an issue.
  I'm a little conflicted on that, I think it's important for editors to be aware of restrictions before they are sanctioned. However, even if an editor recessive an alert it's still very likely that they won't be aware of specific page-level restrictions as the notice they receive on their talk page doesn't tell them that. So, given that, the only way to ensure that they are aware is to give them an alert and tell them about page-specific restrictions in place. That's not really a sustainable approach both in terms of logging and administrative hoops to jump through, but it is my preference from a editor point of view.
  From an administrator and as someone who was very active with AE my preference would be that if the article has an edit notice the editor can be sanctioned (regardless of whether they've received a notice). The problem with that approach is that it's easily missed using VisualEditor and edit notices don't appear at all in the mobile version.
  So, I'm still on the fence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• To add (re BU Rob13), my preference is that an editor would both be aware of the discretionary sanction in the topic area (through an alert or otherwise) and that the page in question had an edit notice (plus, given the technical limitations, weren't using a mobile device). That, to me, seems to be best way to ensure that an editor is aware of the restrictions which are in place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I too cannot see how it is reasonable to apply page-level DS without individual warning. Our system for DS is sufficiently complicated that at the very least fairness require full notice. . DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

since I was asked for my general view. I personally consider the system of AE inherently unfair, unreasonable, and erratic. I have never participated in it as an admin, and I would advise other admins to use it only when there is no other solution. Unfortunately I cannot find an alternative, so all we can do at the moment is try to minimize harm. At least we can require explicit notice. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I've modified my position based on the convoluted nature of discussions on this page in the last 2 weeks. I no longer support the use at AE at all. The system is too complicated, unclear, and inflexible. Though I still have no suggestion for a replacement, the first thing to try is to see if we can do without it entirely. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG that the entire discretionary sanctions and general sanctions systems is a mess. We should take a hard look at their wording and implementation, because I believe it is inherently unfair to sanction an editor if that editor is unaware of a possible penalty. The burden is on us as administrators to make sure an editor is aware, as unwieldy and burdensome as that is, and we need to make it as simple as possible in order for the system to work. I'm no coder, and I don't know if this is possible, but maybe a bot could place a notice on an editor's talk page after their first edit to a page under discretionary sanctions. Or perhaps an 'are you sure?' box like the one that comes up when we try to give the DS alert on a user talk page.

In terms of the specifics here, Seraphim System made fifteen edits to the page in question in just over 48 hours. It strains credulity that he didn't see the 1RR edit notice with that many edits. I could possibly believe it if this were three edits, but fifteen? It's even got a hidden comment that appears directly under the places where he added his maintenance tags. Does he need bright flashing lights and sirens? Katie^talk 11:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Coffee: It is my understanding that the DS notice is required to be posted as it is in the template, and that color modification (or any modification other than the topic area) is not allowed. Katie^talk 03:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• The block seems reasonable. I see the problem with VE and mobile devices, but I still think that an edit notice should be sufficient. I'm sure we can improve the system but my experience is that DS in general is avoiding a lot of problems we'd have without the system. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the comment by Seraphim System about the color scheme perhaps it could have been missed, so I’ll have to reconsider my comment. Doug Weller talk 22:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I think we should consider Callanecc's suggested wording. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • [[User:Darkfrog24}} makes a good point. I try to always start a new section with a clear heading stating that DS has been applied. Maybe this should be required. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• @DGG and Callanecc: Could you clarify whether you think just notification of discretionary sanctions in the topic area is necessary before sanction or notification of the specific page-level sanctions on each individual page? How does this opinion interact with the prominent edit notices typically used on articles under sanction? Would a notification of topic area sanctions in addition to an edit notice about the page-level sanctions be considered sufficient notification? Note I'm asking about what you think should be, not what you think is current practice/policy. Opinions from any other editors would also be appreciated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As a procedural note, the Committee has no authority to modify general sanctions, which derive solely from the community. If we decide to alter the awareness requirements for discretionary sanctions, the most we can do is encourage the community to adopt the same changes. Having said that, I think we need to seriously think about what the right standard of awareness is. Should an editor have to be actually aware of a page-level restriction to be sanctioned, or should they only need to have been in a position such that a reasonable editor of limited experience would be aware? For instance, if a particularly oblivious editor misses a massive edit notice with giant font saying "This article is under 1RR" (with appropriate wikilinks to explain), should they be sanctioned if they violate that restriction? As for the technical issues (mobile browsers, mostly), that is something we can presumably refer to the WMF to develop a fix. It would be technically doable to display edit notices in mobile browsers on a page prior to the edit window. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's my take on current policy and practice, for what it's worth. WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts makes clear that at least a topic area-level notice must be issued before sanctioning under discretionary sanctions. A page restriction derived from discretionary sanctions can only be enforced via discretionary sanctions, so this same awareness requirement exists before sanctioning someone for violating a page restriction. Currently, there is no requirement (in policy or in practice) requiring an additional notice of a page restriction before sanctioning an editor for violating it. There's no policy requirement for edit notices, etc., but in practice, we do expect administrators to place them. The conversation on changes to this policy should probably take place at a different venue with community feedback. As for this particular block, Seraphim System hadn't been notified of discretionary sanctions in this topic area, so he should not have been sanctioned. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Since it should be possible technically to place individual notices, there is no reason not to do so. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• If there's a legitimate doubt that an editor was aware that a restriction was in place, then better practice is to warn rather than block for a violation of that restriction—unless the edit was such as to be independently blockable in any case. We have had instances (I'm not opining on whether this is one) in which an editor was blocked and sincerely had no idea why; it is important that that should not happen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Focusing for a second on the original question, are we all agreed that at a minimum an editor cannot be sanctioned under page restrictions deriving from discretionary sanctions unless they've met the awareness criteria for that DS topic area? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I am, but I'd like to add (by motion) that there also needs to be an edit notice on the article (with a footnote that admins should consider that the footnote doesn't appear when using a mobile device). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I've started working on a draft at User:Callanecc/sandbox2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• OK, I've caught up on all the other ARCAs except this one, so I guess I can't avoid it anymore. This is thinking-out-loud as I'm catching up on the background reading; read it if you like arbs showing their work and skip it if you don't like long-ass posts ;)
  • My first reaction to all of this follows DGG and Katie's reactions that AE/DS is kind of a mess, and not only because it's unpredictable from editors' perspective but also because it must be seriously tiresome to be an admin on the receiving end of all the wikilaywering. This is not the only recent issue that centers on someone objecting to a short block and one way to manage that problem is to just deescalate the perceived significance of blocks. I'm perfectly happy to get blocked some more if necessary ;)
  • Slakr is definitely on the right track in not expecting that talk-page banners are sufficient to alert editors of the actual article. But in terms of editnotices on the article itself... I hate editnotices. Hate. For a long time I used a userscript to automatically hide them because there are so many and they're so bloated and they take up so much space on my little 11" laptop screen. (Obviously, I did not obey the one on this page that says "be succinct" ;) While I'm sure every incremental addition to every editnotice on the project seemed important and useful at the time, cumulative banner blindness is a real problem. There's also the issue Callanecc points out - editnotices are formatted differently, and often hard to read, and sometimes may not appear at all for editors using the Visual Editor or the 2017 source editor, and they're unavailable on the mobile site (and the mobile app?). Also, the edit tags indicating which editor someone used aren't perfectly reliable either, so not really a good way to judge whether someone "should" have seen a notice. In general, editnotices are not reliable methods for communicating information to editors. I was under the impression we'd already decided this once, but when I went back to look at the incident I was thinking of, the conclusion was almost the opposite of what I thought I remembered. (And for my own part, I see I was more concerned with a different aspect of AE/DS enforcement I consider problematic. I was unaware at the time of the "consultation discussion" Callanecc linked above.)
  • That being said, it is also obviously impractical for some editors on an article to be under the impression that they are working in a 3RR environment, and others to be subject to 1RR (because they've received the appropriate individual DS alerts, rather than because they personally are under an editing restriction). The best solution I can think of is a bot sending out automated alerts to the talk pages of editors to an article subject to a 1RR restriction, but I had the impression that had been considered before and decided against (either because no one wants to write the bot, or because of practical limitations that aren't immediately coming to mind).
  • Overall I think Callanecc's sandbox version is better than what we have now, but more broadly, I think the current mechanisms aren't effective in communicating restrictions to editors and are asking admins to do a lot of manual checking before sanctioning someone under those restrictions. Unless I'm missing an obvious drawback, I think we should revisit the bot-notification method. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks. I actually think that's a feature, not a bug :) When the existing alerts come from specific other editors, people tend to react to them as if they're aggressive acts or personal affronts. If everybody and their mother gets one, and they come from DSBot, they're less personal. (I assume the bot could deliver just one notice per topic.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the follow-ups - this is a bit of a side point, since a change of that scale would be better discussed somewhere other than the middle of an ARCA, but I'll go read the other discussion in the meantime. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Ca2james, what qualifies as an "alert" is spelled out Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Alerts here and isn't being modified AFAIK. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Correct, we are not modifying that at all in this motion. I'm going to refactor the motion to underline the changes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• @SPECIFICO: I largely agree with your comments. I think there is appetite both within the Committee and among the broader editing community to overhaul how discretionary sanctions operate. This discussion is not about that, but separately, discussions about discretionary sanctions and arbitration enforcement in general are happening. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Thanks for proposing this Rob. Obviously support since I wrote it and my comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Okay, because it makes it clearer, but we really need to look at the whole discretionary sanctions thing and make it work better. Katie^talk 23:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
4. Support, but I agree with Katie that this system is Byzantine at best. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
5. Agree with Katie. Thanks to Rob for proposing. Alex Shih (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
6. This is a good start to hopefully clearing up DS once and for all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
7. Been mulling over this, but it does seem a general good step. Worm^TT(talk) 08:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
8. Agree with KrakatoaKatie. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
9. As an improvement over current wording. -- with no implication it deals with all necessary improvements. DGG ( talk ) 11:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
10. Ok, I'm not entirely sure but it's better than the old version, and maybe baby steps are the way to do this. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
11. Per most of the other supporters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Inactive

1. Opabinia regalis
2. DeltaQuad
3. Mkdw

Discussion by arbitrators

• Posting this with slight edits from User:Callanecc/sandbox2. This motion serves to add edit notices as a requirement before sanctioning for a page restriction. It also makes clearer that editors must be aware of discretionary sanctions in a topic area before being sanctioned under a page restriction. The last line in the proposed page restrictions section will probably be reformatted as a note if this passes, but it's easiest to display without a note here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why successfully appealing all their sanctions makes an editor unaware of the sanctions. I know that has to be over 12 months earlier, but as suggested above, isn't it pretty certain that an editor who has had to appeal a sanction would remember it? Doug Weller talk 12:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Doug Weller: I think the logic behind having the 12 month timer at all is because editors with no sanctions/heavy involvement in the area are unlikely to follow whether discretionary sanctions have been rescinded or not. Having said that, I agree we should simplify the awareness requirements and plan to start a discussion about simplifying discretionary sanctions in general soon-ish. For now, this proposal doesn't change anything about the usual awareness requirements, and I think it's best to avoid trying to conflate this simple change with a broader overhaul of DS. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Changes are now underlined while removed text is struck. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)