Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:33, 6 January 2018

Note: This talk page should only be used for discussion about the way arbitration enforcement operates: how to use the enforcement noticeboard, who can post and why, etc. All discussion about specific enforcement requests should be routed through the main noticeboard or other relevant pages for discussion. Discussion about the committee in general should go to a wider audience at WT:AC or WT:ACN. → Please click here to start a new topic. ←

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Note about these archives In 2008 the committee amalgamated all talk pages of the various arbitration requests subpages, and from then AE-related discussion took place at WT:AC. In 2015 this decision was overturned and AE regained a stand-alone talk page (with the committee ruling that it should have one solely for procedural and meta-discussion, with it not being used to rehash enforcement requests themselves). There are therefore two distinct archives for this page. Archive 3 and onwards are from after the restoration of the talk page. Archive 1 and 2 above are the archives from before the amalgamation.

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Updating Template:Ds/talk notice to make it clearer

I've had a few editors tell me that they find the current templates unclear in that it isn't easy to find what pages are actually covered.

At the moment we have two styles: The default is a concise, bold-print message:

{{Ds/talk notice|tpm|brief}} gives:

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Alternatively there is a more wordy and detailed message:

{{Ds/talk notice|saq|long}} gives: Error: The code letter saq for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Experienced editors and others with good eyesight will probably realise they have to click on the word 'subject' in the first one and 'permitted' in the second one to get to the Final decision, which is itself wordy and full of information that many editors won't want to read, and it isn't immediately obvious which pages are covered.

In March I asked the clerks if they could create something more reader-friendly and Kevin wrote Template:Ds/talk notice/sandbox which changes these to:

Pages related to ], including the attached page, are subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully.

Error: The code letter saq for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Error: The code letter saq for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

We (the Committee) are posting this here as probably the best place to garner comments from those most involved with the process. Do people like this, and do they have any tweaks to suggest?

I myself feel that the long version should be the default, rather than the short version which is the current default. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• There was recently confusion of the wording "is subject to", as the nuance between "ArbCom has authorized the potential use of DS" and "there are active sanctions" isn't properly resolved by "is subject to". How about "Discretionary sanctions can be applied to..."?

The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Commitee for pages related to Some Bullshit™, including this one. Please edit carefully.

I'm open to other suggestion but I don't think we should sacrifice clarity for brevity. I agree that it should default to the long version. The short verion can be used on articles with overloaded headers (such as ones with active DS sanctions). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete these page templates Rather than fix the page templates, I've long thought they should be deleted, because they serve no useful purpose and imposing DS based on them violates the DS procedures. Under the new system, DS can only be imposed if an editor is has actual "awareness" DS applies. The rules explicitly define how we measure "awareness". Per those instructions, page templates do not meet the "awareness" pre-condition necessary to impose DS. Moreover, this is a failed proposal. During the redesign, one ostensible reason for changing the DS notice from a fault-implied/badge of shame warning to a no-faul/FYI comment was to de-stigmatize the giving of notice. I argued strongly that the best way to do this was through ubiquity... give everyone in the subject area the same notice the moment they arrive. I thought we could do that with page templates connected to a bot programmed to template users at their talk page. This idea was shot down, in part due to the scenario that a given edit might be topical even though it appears on t a page which is not (e.g., comments about gun control on the Tea Party pages). Since under the current rules page templates are insufficient to give an editor "awareness" for purpose of imposing DS, I'd like to see them just be deleted. Alternatively, the simplest thing to do is to revise them so they mirror exactly the template that would be posted on an editors talk page. That way, there is only one thing to maintain over time. In addition, since we are able to identify key pages for a page notice, it should be a simple matter of programming to tie these notices to a bot that would dish out one subject matter alert every 12 months for people editing those pages and talk pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. According to my understanding of the current rules, editors need to be individually notified on their talk pages before discretionary sanctions against them are possible. Talk page templates can't do that. They are therefore superfluous and should be deleted.  Sandstein  12:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think this view might ignore some subtleties of the user experience. While a pre-warning isn't required by the procedure, it could still have a moderating or deterring effect on some who read it. AGK 20:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• What about an argument by new users that I didn't know that the page belong to DS area especially in border cases.--Shrike (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Either they know because they received a talk page alert, or they should be issues a talk page alert. According to DS rules, that's the only "awareness" marker than counts. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

One may say Hadera don't belong to I/P conflict because it doesn't have template and its just article about city in Israel and most of the material is not about a conflict. Could AE case could be filed against a user for editing this article?--Shrike (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course an AE case could be filed, and over the course of the AE case one of the elements that would need examination will ve whether AE is even applicable. Just like everything else, stuff can be discussed. I'll note that there is also an open ARCA currently to add in the DS instructions exactly how and where to "dispute" the inclusion of an article under a specific DS topic area (such as "should Hadera full under ARBIP"), and the result will probably be a discussion at AE anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I would want to know if something is under discretionary sanctions or not--for new editors this is not a bad thing. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. It isn't about whether or not we get to ban hammer them, it is about the editor: giving them a tool to know it is under special protection. It also gives editors on that talk page something to point to easily to refer those new users. It isn't about allowing excuses, it's about giving information in the easiest way possible, and the talk page banner does that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If page templates remain as an FYI/reminder sort of thing they should also have a link to the "awareness" criteria and text that saying more or less do not call this banner to new editors' attention. Instead, use the usertalk template designed for that purpose NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's be honest with ourselves, the usertalk template is not typically used as a friendly gesture to help a new user. It is most commonly used as a warning and because the person leaving the template is preparing (perhaps threatening) to take the recipient to AE, and the template is proof of prior notification. It can be used for many reasons, but most commonly it is used as a shot across the bow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I leave notices all the time, and I follow up with a subsection for discussion, and in the subsection I point out the notice is FYI and that I also gave the same notice to myself. Per the original goal of the overhaul, our intention is to destigmatize the notice. So I treat them that way, and I expect others who are in the know to AGF when I do that and also pull on the oars for prevention of problems. If others in the know can not or will not do that, then the battle mentality may reside in the minds of experienced eds as well as newbies. And I'm not implying that anyone in this conversation does this, just speaking in the abstract. We have the B&W text that says these things are FYI. Everyone should treat them as such, whether they are giving them, getting them, or are a third party observing them being given.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that changing the templates as suggested (including the suggestion from Salvidrim!) is a good idea. I also agree that adding something about the awareness criteria is also a good idea (maybe link in the brief version and a sentence or two in the long version). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • These sounds like good ideas. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Something like:

The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Commitee for pages related to Some Bullshit™, including this page. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted uninvolved Misplaced Pages administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on editors of pages related to Some Bullshit™, including this page. As long as the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

Hm? (adding pings: Doug Weller, Callanecc, L235). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks great In addition, destigmatization of the DS Alert notice would be enhanced if everyone editing pages with this tag triggers code on the server that automatically templates their talk page with DS Alert if there is no record of a prior alert in the prior twelve months. Since even an FYI no-fault template is annoying, we may want to add a threshold such as the number of bytes in an edit, or more than just one or two edits.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with the changes. I would maybe copy-edit down some of the wording of the long-form notice. "Misplaced Pages" is already implied when referring to administrators. "On editors of pages" is an awkward sentence. It implies belonging but it's not clear how that's established, whether through affiliation (to a newcomer), or simply by the act of editing the article (which is what we mean). I'd also propose to change the last sentence to the following, "Provided the awareness criteria is met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." Just a few suggestions on my part. Mkdw 16:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • So:

The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Commitee for pages related to Some Bullshit™, including this page. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to Some Bullshit™, including this page. Provided the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

Criteria is the plural form, and there are multiple, so I'm sticking with "are met" and not "is met", Mkdw. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for including some of my suggestions. Yes, you're right. I'm used to the colloquial form but I might have to wait another 20 years before it's accepted as written formal. One thing I noticed that wasn't transferred over above is a preposition between " may be used" and "editors who repeatedly or seriously fail". Previously versions had "against". It's debatable whether "any" needs to be repeated since, as you pointed out, criteria is plural, but it doesn't really affect the meaning of the sentence one way or another. Mkdw 17:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 fixed ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mkdw, Dennis Brown, Salvidrim!, L235, Callanecc, NewsAndEventsGuy, Shrike, and Sandstein: is the latest version suitable now so that we can make the change? At the moment, if you need to add 2 separate DS notices they look identical, which is clearly a bad thing. I realise that a couple of you don't like these but as it stands they are required. Doug Weller talk 10:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I like plain Texas talk when it comes to templates. Something that says "Editors who edit disruptively in any way or violate the restrictions are likely to be prohibited from editing in this topic area or blocked from editing altogether." The last paragraph ("Provided....") is so watered down as to be vague to a newer editor. My sentence grabs their attention, tells them we are serious, and is in fact, more fair to them since it spells out exactly what will happen. They need to be cautious. I think we are trying to be too politically correct / nice / political or something. They need plain spoken facts that any 12 year old can understand. I don't think the awareness part is needed anyway, that is an issue for enforcement only. We don't need to tell them that this only applies if we tell them. They are already reading it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown has a point with regard to simplicity. However, we do occasionally see people at AE who request sanctions even when it is far from clear that the editors at issue were made properly aware of possible sanctions. Including the awareness requirement in the template helps prevent pointless enforcement requests. I agree with the most recent drafts above.  Sandstein  12:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with proposal, but I'll toss out another to compare. This version is a little wordier, but explicitly sets DS in context of our overall Blocking policy, and it tries to put the right "spin" on the topic (prevention to enhance smooth editing). I don't know template formatting so I'll just italicize it

'Editors at this page may be subject to Discretionary sanctions

Everywhere in Misplaced Pages, editors are expected to follow our policies and guidelines and those who don’t may be blocked from editing. Because some topics have proven especially contentious, the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (a faster enforcement process) to help keep things running smoothly in those areas. Before requesting or imposing such sanctions on another editor, please verify that the mandatory awareness criteria have been met.

It's wordier, but in my view, the only people likely to actually read the template are those who don't already know about DS and therefore extra words help make it more clear. But like I said, I'm also fine with the Doug's latest proposal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the latest proposal, and with NewsAndEventsGuy's suggestion. My preference is slightly towards the one Doug points to above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Bot-delivery of alerts

• I agree entirely with NewsAndEventsGuy. Worse, we were promised another comprehensive review of DS over two years ago (the last one we had was four or five years ago, in Roger Davies's tenure), and it never happened. While DS may possibly be useful in some perennial-dispute content areas, they've been a problematic "solution" in internal ones (e.g. WP:ARBATC), and this template system has been an unmitigated disaster.

  First, the requirement to deliver templates, which expire after a while, permits any bad-actor to WP:GAME the system with ease; they simply disrupt to their heart's content in one area, finally get a notice after people try to do something about it and realize that their hands are tied to these stupid template requirements, then the disruptor simply goes and disrupts a different area they haven't received a notice about, or abandon their SPA and create another one. This "maybe they're unaware of the sanctions" thing is a harmful, community-self-delusional fantasy. They damned well know exactly what they're doing, and the presence of DS banners on the relevant talk pages makes everyone aware as soon as they start participating in the topic area.

  Second, the wording and appearance of these templates is so menacing, they are universally interpreted as hostile threats, never as neutral notices. I've even twice had people try to ANI me for "harassment" because I left them notices that ArbCom requires.
  (One of the main things I'd hoped to accomplish in 2018, as an ArbCom candidate, was DS reform. It's irksome that I missed election by less than 3% and actually received more support votes that 50% of the candidates who passed. The voting system we have for this is broken.)

  All that said, the proposals above are a tiny improvement and I support them, and without a desire to nit-pick over exact wording. But it's like putting a Band-aid on a shotgun wound.

  At bare minimum, a bot should deliver templates to anyone who edits a page (or talkpage thereof) subject to DS. Better yet, delete the userspace templates and assume, rationally, that "ignorance of the law is no exception" and that people who edit repeatedly in DS-covered topics are aware of the DS. Or just get rid of DS, which is the proximal and sole cause of "adminship is not/shouldn't be a big deal" no longer being true.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ<  18:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  • As I said on SMcCandlish's talk page, I'd agree with using bots to deliver the alerts rather than editors. That would allow us to alert editors more comprehensively and thus solve the problem of editors not being alerted before a sanction, may reduce the threat factor of an alert if it's issued by a machine and remove any concern about alerts being issued selectively/with ulterior motives. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The problem with bots is that they cannot distinguish easily between content editors, who need to be made aware, and copy editors/error fixers who do not. Those who do the latter sort of work would end up with awareness notices for potentially every area of conflict on the encyclopaedia, clogging up their talk page and potentially discouraging newer editors with a big scary message that's not relevant to what they are doing. As an example, I recently went through fixing all the non-breaking space errors I could find. One of them was on an article in the India-Pakistan topic area, others the same day were to articles potentially within scope of the Eastern Europe, Arab-Israel and Pseudoscience areas. I'm not engaging with the topic when making these sorts of edits, indeed I don't even need to know what the topic of the article is in many cases. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

      So rule out minor edits. Or only deliver a notice after x number of edits to the page that are larger than y bytes. Or better yet, get rid of this stupid template and "awareness" system, as I suggested above in more detail.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ<  08:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

      • It's not just minor edits though, is arguably minor, arguably not (in such situations I always default to not minor) but my subsequent edit to the page added over 4K to the article and certainly isn't what I'd describe as minor. There could also easily have been a third edit to the page if one or more of the archives needed tweaking. Pretty much every algorithm I've seen proposed would flag this series of edits as indicating an editor involved in the subject and would send me an alert (if the University of Florida is within the scope of any active DS). Looking at my surrounding article edits - a French footballer, extradjudicial killing, a Spanish/Mexican pop group, and a Telgu film might work, but it might not as another editor may work through lists of articles that have patterns. However a human can see at a glance whether an editor needs to be alterted or not.
        While the idea of removing the notifications system is superficially attractive, it is not fair to sanction people for breaching rules they don't know exist and so there would need to be some other way of determining who does know about them and who does not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
        • I am sure a bot can treat two edits separately (ignore the first and alert for the second). Otherwise, two other ways of doing this would be to create an opt-out list for the bot (with the understanding that opted out editors are considered to be aware of DS in any case) or to make the alert notice less scary sounding. Or we just accept the "editors notified about a minor edit" problem if we think that the benefits outweigh the problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
          • The point is that I don't think the benefits of bot delivery do outweigh the problems (indeed I think precisely the opposite). For copyeditors, typo fixers, etc, working on many topics notifications by bot would just be spam and, certainly after the first couple ignored as such. If then that editor did start editing content in a DS topic area the would formally be aware but not practically as they wouldn't have paid any attention to the alert. I think what should happen is that a human gives an alert (carefully worded and formatted to be strictly informative and non-scary) to every editor who makes a content edit in the topic area for the first time. A bot could, say once a day, generate a list of editors who've made edits to tagged articles but who have not been alerted in the past 12 months with the edits linked. A human could review those edits and easily see whether an alert is needed. This would work fine for quiet DS areas like the Shakespeare Authorship Question, but whether it would scale to something like Israel-Palestine you would need to ask someone who works in that topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

    In the end, I cannot care about this "minor edits problem" because it is not actually a problem. ArbCom and AE have maintained, since day one and no matter what, that these template do nothing but make someone aware of something, and mean and imply nothing else. Ergo, precisely zero harm of any kind can come from ultimately being aware of every DS-covered topic on the system. Indeed, it's help one cover one's own ass I mean avoid unfortunate conflict and undeserved sanctions. Both AE and ArbCom even took this position when the early draft of this templates directly and wrongfully made allegations of prior wrongdoing ("If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic" and admins described them as warnings not awareness notices ("This warning is made as a result of ...") .

    See also Opabinia regalis's recent comments at

• @SMCCandlish: you've missed the points that these will be confusing (and potentially off-putting) for new gnomes, and that the gnomes will not actually be aware in practical terms, because they will just treat the notices as spam and ignore them - meaning they will also potentially miss important notices that happen to look similar or any messages left with or at a similar time to the alert (regardless of subject or importance). For example, I edited articles in about 15 different topic areas yesterday, if I got an alert to say that I had 4 talk page messages and was used to getting these alerts I'd just assume that the messages were four more and wouldn't have looked at the message from Redrose64, or I might have scrolled passed it in the middle of the alerts. I certainly wouldn't note which topic areas they related to, or what specifics are in place in any of them. If in 6 months time I then made some content edits in a conflict area I would be formally aware that is under DS but in practice I would be clueless. I don't oppose bot-delivery, but the selection of who to deliver them to needs to remain done by humans otherwise we'll just end up with a new set of problems - including defeating a key purpose of the system. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  Seems like you want a throttle on DS notices if they are automated (i.e no more than N alerts for N topic areas in X time). Complicated to code but would solve that issue. Besides, the alerts being delivered by humans is a problem given the points I mentioned, not a neutral fact. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  No I don't think a throttle will solve most of the problems I identified. I'm not doubting that human delivery has problems, but indiscriminate bot-delivery will not necessarily solve all of them and will definitely lead to other problems. This is why I'm suggesting humans tell bots who to deliver alerts to. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  they will just treat the notices as spam and ignore them - meaning they will also potentially miss important notices that happen to look similar or any messages left with or at a similar time to the alert (regardless of subject or importance) seems rather dubious to me - we have plenty of bots (and humans) which do alerting for other issues and I am not aware of any such thing happening (and is certainly not ameliorated by human delivery, either). There is little merit to have humans telling bots to deliver notices to specific editors over the humans doing it themselves. As for the minor edit issue, throttling does reduce the spam issue and besides even minor edits can cause contention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  Absolutely minor edits can cause contention, and major edits can be completely unquestionable and irrelevant to the topic area. This is why an algorithm can't determine who needs an alert and who doesn't. In my experience other bot-driven delivered notices are either things you've subscribed to (e.g. newsletters, RfC invitations) and are thus relevant to the recipient or are directly related to edits the gonme has made and relevant to their work (e.g. the you linked to a disambiguation page notices). These are not spam and so not treated as such. 1 notice per day (or pretty much any other throttle) still doesn't solve the issue of a pile of notices that are not being read and remembered down the line, and would prevent the recepit of notices when gnomish edits in one topic precede content edits in another. Also, you don't need to repeatedly try and convince me that the current system has problems when I agree it does. My argument is simply that your proposed solution will create different problems that are at least as bad as the ones you are trying to solve. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  Well, I was more contesting the claim that these problems would be as bad as the current ones. Then again, I think we need more opinions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

RE: E.M.Gregory

I've never heard of Naomi Klein, but I was curious to see if I could trace down the source for the alleged "the most democratic country in the Western hemisphere" quote. It appears that this quote is not from Klein, but from an article published by The Nation. Her only connection to this article that I can see is that she Tweeted it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussion about building tools for managing Editing Restrictions

The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team would like to build and improve tools to support the work done by contributors who set, monitor, and enforce editing restrictions on Misplaced Pages, as well as building systems that make it easier for users under a restriction to avoid the temptation of violating a sanction and remain constructive contributors.

You are invited to participate in a discussion that documents the current problems with using editing restrictions and details possible tech solutions that can be developed by the Anti-harassment tools team. The discussion will be used to prioritize the development and improvement of tools and features.

For the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Scope of article sanctions

• Linda Sarsour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arbitration sanctions imposed on articles related to the Arab-Israel conflict have been added to talk page at Linda Sarsour. Does this article properly warrant being covered by such sanctions? I'm dubious. If so, then a host of persons, perhaps thousands, will be covered. Perhaps they should be, but I wanted to be clear. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding pages requires them to be logged as an AE sanction by the administrator that imposed the sanction. Then, those admins are the proper place to ask questions. If they aren't logged on the AE/DS log by an admin, the notice can be removed as just placing the notice doesn't cut it. --DHeyward (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward Thanks for your response. To clarify, do you mean it needs to be logged as an AE sanction before the notice is placed? Where would the log be for Arab-Israel arbitration sanctions. I'm not clear. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Coffee has placed the article under EC protection and logged the action in WP:DSLOG. If you disagree that it's an I/P article, you could ask Coffee and if necessary appeal at WP:AE. In my own opinion it's reasonable to be considered ARBPIA. She is a supporter of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and has been in the news due to that support. Clearly BDS is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You could also argue that Sarsour's article falls under WP:ARBAP2. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The log is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement log#Palestine-Israel articles. The article Linda Sarsour was added by User:Coffee but it appears the notice was placed by someone else before he added it. Coffee is responsible for putting the page under DS and you would need to discuss with him first. --DHeyward (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate the responses, I just wanted to find out what the procedure is in such things for future reference. I believe that once I placed such a notice on a page (I forget which one), but it was not logged in anywhere. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The tag Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement was placed on the talk page by User:Huldra on 21 December. Since the presence of this tag causes 1RR to become active for the whole page, it's my opinion that such tags should only be placed by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that Coffee has logged his EC protection in DSLOG I think the ARBPIA talk page banner ought to remain, regardless of the general rule. The status of the page (whether ARBPIA or not) is now up to Coffee, unless it is appealed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, ok, but that is against what is common practice in the area. Common practice is that any editor (not only admins) can place a notice on a page, typically to inform newbies on that page (I did it to inform User:Bellezzasolo). Say, look at User:Shrike/ARBPIA which I believe lists articles which has a label on it, mostly placed by non admins.

Also, unknown to me, admin Vanamonde93 had just asked for protection earlier of the Linda Sarsour article. When 2 admins independently of me came to the same result as me, then I don’t think I was that far off.

But I agree that this is a matter which might need to be clarified. Perhaps a request at WP:ARCA is due? Regards, Huldra (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

PS, and now a 3rd admin, Missvain, has fully protected the article, Huldra (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Unclear why ARCA would be needed until such time as there is a big disagreement, which not even admins agree on. In the past there has been a relaxed attitude to who can place the templates, but the template didn't formerly contain such explicit language about sanctions on the particular page. Whoever places the template is now imposing a page-level sanction. Or appears to be. While I'm here I wish the autosign function was added to the template so we could figure out who placed it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've also seen admins forget to add the template. I think the community does a fairly good job of removing the templates when they are added improperly. The problem I have encountered more often is pages that should have been templated but weren't.Seraphim System 23:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

When I place such a template on a talk page, I don't see it as me imposing a sanction, rather as a note making everyone aware that arb.com have placed the article under sanctions. Most of the articles I edit are under arb.com sanctions, say, each and every one of the articles in Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. But very few of those articles actually have a template on their talk page. Again, if I put a template there, it is not me imposing any sanction, rather me making everyone (read: newbies) clear that arb.com has put the article under sanctions. Of course, me placing a template on the talk page doesn't physically prevent any editor from editing the page, only an admin, like above, Coffee, can do that by adding pp-30-500 to the page. (Or fully protect it, as Missvain just did) Huldra (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

But ArbCom didn't put the article under discretionary sanction. Rather they authorized discretionary sanctions when an admin has decided, in their discretion, to add them. Making people aware of possible sanctions is okay but implying that a page is already under discretionary sanctions is incorrect unless an admin has logged it with the sanction they are imposing. The instruction regarding logging of page level sanctions is pretty clear. --DHeyward (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Arb.com placed all articles in the area, broadly construed, under sanctions. As I said, it is long term practice that non admin place these templates. I have never had any template I have added discussed before, as I have added them only to what I see as obvious articles under ARBPIA.

I see it was discussed above, in July/August this year, but I cannot see any decision that non admins cannot label any talk page?

If, in the future, only admins are allowed to place a template on a talk page, it will massively increase the workload of admins. They would have to get involved each and every time a new ARBPIA article become a contested area. That non admins can make other editors, (mostly newbies), aware of the rules in the area, have saved lots of admin time.

This does start to look like a case for ARCA. Huldra (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You can notify editors of the arbcom decision. That's done all the time usually on their talk page. But if you are trying to imply that that a page is under a specific sanction, say 1RR or extended confirmed, that's not okay. The rules for page level sanctions are clear. Notices that put the 1RR warning on the edit page or even just say 1RR on the talk page must be a logged sanction and should be removed if an admin has not created that sanction. In short, the only purpose of a non-admin placing a notice on a talk page is for notification. I doubt that notification would be sufficient under the requirements for DS notice which makes the effort rather pointless. --DHeyward (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

comment Having these placed on non-DS logged pages by non admins is not harmless. For istance see AE involving Ali Khamenei in which all involved thought (wrongly per AE outcome) this was 1RR due to a talk page notice. Having the notice on a page makes one assume almost everything on that article is under ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Everything can be misused, but I repeat, no-one has ever challenged me for putting a template on a talk page before, and in this case, 3 independent admins have supported the action. Having said that, and in reply to DHeyward: I don't get your opinion to match with what was said above, on this page? Also, I have looked at this as a 2 tier structure: non admin can warn anyone (with a template, on the talk page) that this is an article under ARBPIA sanction. Obviously, this will not physically stop anyone from editing the article (or even from removing the template.) Only admins can do that, by adding pp-30-500 to the page, and logging the sanction. Now, this 2 tier structure have actually worked reasonably well, most people when they see such a template stop....and discuss. Why change it? (Yes, I realise, that in order to sanction anyone, they will also have to be notified on their talk page, etc, etc. But when I put a template on an article talk page, it is NOT to sanction anyone, but ..mostly, like in this case, to inform newbies that they should not be editing the article) Huldra (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The "discussion" above is some of the worst bureaucratic bullshit I've seen. Articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are subject to sanctions, but only an administrator may put the notice on the talk page? BULLSHIT! The sanctions apply whether an editor is aware of them or not, so any editor who notifies her or his fellow editors of the sanctions is performing a public good. Such behavior ought to be encouraged, not outlawed. Administrators would do well to actually, you know, edit the encyclopedia once in a while. — MShabazz /_Stalk 02:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Malik is quite correct and DHeyward is quite incorrect. DHeyward's error is to confuse once-off sanctions that uninvolved admins are permitted to impose with topic-wide sanctions that ArbCom has imposed already. Look at the wording: it says "Each editor is limited..." not "Uninvolved admins can decide that each editor is limited...". It even says that involved ordinary editors can enforce the sanction by reverting. As Huldra said, politely informing other editors that sanctions are in place (provided they really are) is a Good Thing and should be encouraged. Zero 03:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Only page restrictions placed under discretionary sanctions must be logged at the discretionary sanctions log. The four sanctions on {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} are not discretionary sanctions. They are ArbCom remedies. They are active on all pages in the topic area with no need to log or use the template. Use of the template is encouraged to make editors aware of the sanction. Any editor, including non-admins, may place that template. This is not the same as placing templates that apply page restrictions that did not exist before (e.g. {{American politics AE}}) because those sanctions are discretionary sanctions that only exist on a page if an admin places them and logs appropriately. ~ Rob₁₃ 03:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As a note on terminology, all pages within a topic area for which discretionary sanctions are authorized are considered to be "under discretionary sanctions". It does not require further action or logging before discretionary sanctions are "active" on any particular article. Separately, admins can place page restrictions as one of many discretionary sanction options. If they do, then the page would be subject to 1RR, consensus required, or whatever other page restriction was put in place. Being "under discretionary sanctions" merely means that an uninvolved administrator can sanction editors who are behaving disruptively subject to the rules at WP:AC/DS. Entirely separate from discretionary sanctions, the entire ARBPIA topic area is under 1RR from an ArbCom remedy. That applies to all pages, with no logging needed. ~ Rob₁₃ 03:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks User:BU Rob13 for the clarification. I think some of the problem here was that User:DHeyward is, AFAIK, more accustomed to editing the American policy pages...AFAIK, the sanctions applying to those pages are somewhat different from the ARBPIA area. Huldra (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
      • The issue is that the Sarsour page is not a page where sanctions apply. Her page is not about the IP conflict, even though one section of her page might be. We should not be adding pages to the sanction just because one section might be there. Sir Joseph 23:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Take that up with the 3 different admins who have supported it, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Is your talk page under ARBPIA sanctions? I have tried time and time to reason with admins in placing articles under sanctions when it shouldn't. And I am taking it up, I posted on this page in a discussion on the topic. Should we go now and tag 80% of the articles because they might be "broadly construed" as being part of the conflict? Sir Joseph 00:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
            • User:Sir Joseph My talk page is not under ARBPIA sanction, it is just permanently semi protected due to an enormous amount of death and rape-threaths on my user-page. Any user page can be protected this way, but it normally only happen to admins, vandal fighters, and those of us who are not considered pro Israeli enough. And you are a bit out of process, all this has been discussed Ad nauseam at the various WP:ARBPIAs. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
              • Your talk page should have the banner and ECP. According to your logic, a good chunk of your talk page is about the IP conflict and as such should be restricted to ARBPIA approved editors. I will ignore your assumption of bad faith of editors. Sir Joseph 20:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
                • Huh? What bad faith? (If you refer to the not pro Israeli enough comment, you must know I am perfectly aware of who has committed most of those offences, our old darling friend..) Huldra (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
                  • So that's one person. My page was vandalized as well, but I am not going to paint entire segment of editors as being part of that. Sir Joseph 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
                    • Huh? User:Sir Joseph: I repeat: What bad faith? I am certainly not "paint entire segment of editors as being part of that". But there are two, or a few more people with.....serious..eh, issues out there, including the above mentioned and this charmer. They are mostly blocked on sight. Obviously they are not among our regular, unbanned editors. BTW, some of us....not so pro-Israeli editors... dream of the day when we had only being vandalised once (instead of hundreds, or thousands of times.) My userpage is protected not only on en.wp, the problems are also on meta, commons, and de.wp...and who knowns where it pops up next. BTW, I am lobbying for a global protect. Again, Sir Joseph: you have absolutely no idea. Have you ever had some vandal making usernames like User:Sir Joseph_the anti-Śemite fucked by multiple camel dicks? No? Try this. Or User:Sir Joseph's severed, rotting head? No? Try this Or User:Sir JosephDoesBadStuffToChildren? No? Try this. So yeah, I think my user page will stay protected for the forseeable future. Huldra (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• The gist of all of this is at ARCA currently. I'll try to summarize what I think is occurring. 1) editors must be made aware of discretionary sanction. Article talk page notices are insufficient. 2). Discretionary sanctions imposed on an article must be logged per the instructions. Vagueness is not okay. If there is any doubt as to whether an article is under sanction or whether an editor is properly notified, it is improper to impose an AE sanction on them. It's too easy to clarify to operate under a cloud of confusion. An editor that can't enforce an AE sanction doesn't have the ability to place articles under the AE umbrella. It's not clear at all that the Sarsour article is inherently covered by ARBPIA and it would require an admin to enforce 1RR or implement extended/confirmed. Merely placing the notice on the page is insufficient warning to editors. Without logging, it would be impossible to track when appeals have been granted (i.e. if consensus of uninvolved admins removes an article from ARBPIA jurisdiction, that's an AE action that needs to be logged because it would require consensus to re-add it, not just the passing whim of an editor). Declaring a page as falling under the ARBPIA umbrella is an AE/DS action that must be logged and tracked if only to determine the criteria for removal. Without a log or AE action, any editor or admin would be free to undo it. --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please read WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions, WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, and WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. All three apply to all pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed, not just those designated and logged by an administrator. This has been pointed out to you by three editors now, yet you persist in repeating your error. — MShabazz /_Stalk 14:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Right, it applies to pages related, not just those pages that might have some content on the page related to the IP conflict. Otherwise, every page on Misplaced Pages should be tagged because everything can be broadly construed as being part of the IP conflict. Sir Joseph 16:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry shaby, but I can read and the issue isn't the ARBCOM case, it's deciding which articles are covered. That is the issue at every article. If an editor comes along and tags Albert Einstein with the ARBPIA tag because they think he's covered, that can be disputed. The tag can be removed. As long as article sanctions are not logged, they aren't protected by the rules governing AE DS. I've done it before when zealidiots have gotten carried away and guess what? It works exactly that way. You're not getting it if you think writing it down is the same thing as enforcement. Until an admin puts the page under 500/30 through the page protection process, your little warning means as exactly nothing. If they don't log it, another admin can remove that protection as only the logged actions can be reviewed as an unequivocal AE action protected by consensus at AE or ANI. Get a clue as to how things work instead of your magic unicorn editor theory. --DHeyward (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• You can remove the notice, I suppose. You can also be sanctioned if you remove a notice on an article that is covered by discretionary sanctions, as it's disruption in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃ 17:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Again, all articles on Misplaced Pages are associated with the IP conflict. Do we really want to tag all articles just because one section might be about the IP conflict? Sir Joseph 17:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Sure, Rob, but it would be logged and tagged by an admin long before that happens. Think of what's available: two non-admins edit warring over the applicability of a tag will result in an admin either agreeing it's covered and officially logging it or agreeing it's not covered and keeping the tag off (and possibly even logging the tag removal as an AE action). There's really no rational outcome where an unlogged DS becomes enforceable if status of the article is questioned. It's too easy to log them and remove the uncertainty rather than trying to enforce a sanction without logging the restriction. Shaby argues below that the article on Albert Einstein is covered though there are no tags or restrictions. Would you support a 1 year block on an editor that is topic banned from PIA articles for adding information on general relativity? Shabby apparently believes that such a block would be a valid AE sanction with no additional notice or opportunity to correct or dispute the relevance of the arbcom case to the article. Because it appears obvious to him that it is covered. It's a great example as to why we don't allow it in practice. --DHeyward (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Again, I must repeat, there is no logging of the applicability of discretionary sanctions. In ARBPIA, there is logging of ECP protections taken as AE actions, but that is separate as it involves an actual admin action (protection). A block of an editor violating their topic ban would certainly be valid if they have previously been warned on the meaning of "broadly construed". An article that contains substantial information related to the I-P conflict is within the topic area. (As an aside, since all AE actions should be preventative, most admins do not protect an article until a non-extendedconfirmed editor has actually editted it. It is very possible for such an article to be under discretionary sanctions but not protected.) ~ Rob₁₃ 18:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Evidently you can't read. If Albert Einstein includes a section about his involvement in the Zionist movement or his opposition to the Revisionists, it absolutely is covered by ARBPIA. (Bad example, bro.) Please, just acknowledge that you made a mistake and STFU. — MShabazz /_Stalk 17:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, we shouldn't be tagging articles just because one section might be covered, and again, please try to remain civil. I believe this was discussed at ARBCOM already, where an article is not tagged or placed under sanctions merely for having a section under the ARBPIA area. Sir Joseph 17:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note that discretionary sanctions are "broadly construed", which includes pages with sections on the IP conflict. The 500/30 restriction is "reasonably construed", which has previously been interpreted to be less broad. There do exist pages that are broadly construed but not reasonably construed to be in the topic area. This is probably one of them. The discretionary sanctions are likely active (especially surrounding edits to that section), but it should not be protected. ~ Rob₁₃ 18:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This is getting overly complicated, surely? Linda Sarsour is an activist of Palestinian descent. Any person with that profile has their page subject to repeated smearing. Every editor in the I/P area knows that this is the norm, and we are talking of several people with a collective 30-40 odd years of editing that area. It is self-evident that the page comes under those sanctions.Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• And yet this article is ECP protected. Every article on Misplaced Pages can be turned into an IP conflict article. We should not be locking down articles. We should strive to have articles as open as possible and only when necessary lock it down. And I also note that most of Sarsour's page is not about the IP area but of her other activities. I also note that it is extremely offensive and ABF to state that if people post critical stuff about her it's "smearing." Critical stuff is posted about her because she does and says things that warrant criticism. Sir Joseph 18:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Challenge it at AE if you disagree; note that discretionary sanctions can be used to ECP something in the broad topic area if it's being disrupted. ~ Rob₁₃ 20:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Every article on Misplaced Pages can be turned into an IP conflict article.

That superultrahyperbole deserves the gauntlet, and a bitcoin if you can turn Gadubanud into an IP conflict article. Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ghil'ad Zuckermann?Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see why you are interested in editing Gadubanud, a place once pristine which had a massacre and was taken over by colonialists. To say the aborigines of Australia share a common ground with the Palestinians is not a stretch. One needs to learn the history of dear old Gadubanud and hold steadfast in the face of Israeli colonialism so that the Palestinians don't suffer the same fate. For more information, see or or Sir Joseph 21:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

So I get to keep my bitcoin. Neither of you can make a connection with the article, which means SJ's hyperbole explodes. As to Zuckermann, he had nothing to do with the Gadubanud. He teaches the Barngarla.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this whole question about templating the Sarsour article is...weird. (The question of clarifying discretionary sanctions versus other sanction is interesting though, thank you User:BU Rob13) The only two editors I have noticed regularly templates IP talk pages, is Shrike and Myself. Now, Shrike and I (as most of you know), hardly agree about anything, but I have no problem when he templates, say: Council for the National Interest here, A land without a people for a people without a land here, Israel and state-sponsored terrorism, here, The Left's Jewish Problem, here Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne here, Aishiyeh massacre here, Al-Quds here ‎(This was found just looking through his latest 100 edits.) Any editor could of course remove a template I (or Shrike) put on a talk page (It has never happened to me, but if it did, I seriously hope I would not be so imbecile as to edit war about it.) I view these templates as courtesy to newbies, if not newbies to WP, then at least newbies in the IP area. Huldra (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally there is an article (paywalled) in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz this morning about the dispute on the Linda Sarsour page. Editors Icewhiz, Seraphim System, E.M. Gregory, Huldra and Sangdeboeuf are mentioned. The article treats it as an Israel-Palestine dispute. My opinion on whether the article falls under ARBPIA is that it doesn't actually matter since any uninvolved administrator is free to impose similar types of restrictions on the page anyway. Zero 23:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Lol, no Omer Benjakob: I did not want the allegations both places as a "compromise"...I wanted it neither place. (Also, personally Im not a great fan of neither Sarsour nor Wiesel....but fair is fair.) Huldra (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: - please refrain from WP:OR.Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Read theWP:OR for once. As many editors have to be repeatedly reminded, this does not apply to arguments on a talk page.Nishidani (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that drives me nuts. Everything we do on talk pages is OR. That's what they're for: analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis of what everyone knows, thinks, can find in sources, can observe as a practicality matter, can diff from past history, fervently proposes or opposes, etc., etc., etc., to help us come to a consensus about something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ<  08:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

MONGO

Moved from project page

• @Sandstein, Vanamonde93, NeilN, Drmies, Bishonen, Black Kite, Alex Shih, BU Rob13, and Masem:, is there consensus that Mongo be topic-banned from "everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people"? This seems to be a category mistake. The edits in question were posted in response to an AE issue; they were not content edits. Has Mongo caused a content problem in this area? SarahSV 19:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sandstein replied to me on my talk page, but I think this should be discussed here, or this discussion should be reopened. He said: "Consensus is not necessary for an AE sanction. The topic ban was issued because the conduct that triggered it was related to the topic." Consensus isn't required when no discussion has taken place (i.e. admins can decide on sanctions without discussion), but once discussion has taken place, admins surely ought not simply to ignore it. SarahSV 20:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Read and follow: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications. This is disruptive and out of process. - MrX 20:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. You may not like the fact this isn't running as you prefer, but the community is much stronger and much more relevant right now than it's ever been. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to join in the revert-fest, but I'd just point out that AC:DS says very clearly "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction", so I suspect this would be best, not deleted, but moved to the TP for discussion. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, consensus can change. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure it can. But just because it can, doesn't mean it has.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it can, but let's stick with this for the time being, if only for the fact that no-one's able to discuss anything while the section is appearing and disappearing on the other page like a bloody cuckoo clock. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fine to discuss/debate/rehash this on this talk page. Kudos to Black Kite for moving it here.- MrX 21:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oh yeah - pinging the people that SV pinged again, as I copied and pasted this section over; @Sandstein, Vanamonde93, NeilN, Drmies, Bishonen, Alex Shih, BU Rob13, and Masem:. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• You want to copy this over? User_talk:SlimVirgin#Response_to_your_question_concerning_AE I think I've been pinged about five times now for the same thread. --NeilN 21:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I commented on the procedural issues raised here at User_talk:SlimVirgin#Response_to_your_question_concerning_AE. As explained there, in my view the place to discuss the merits of the sanction would be an appeal by MONGO, because the sanction cannot be overturned outside of such an appeal. Sandstein 21:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't even realised that existed. Now you've linked it, it can probably stay there for people to read. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure this is the best place. SlimVirgin, you may want to take it to ARCA. That board is for several things, and explicitly includes the making of a "request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement sanction issued by an administrator, such as through discretionary sanctions)", my italics. This talkpage here is fairly obscure, and WP:AN, the other possibility, is unlikely to lead to an orderly discussion. I recommend ARCA. Note how that doesn't say anywhere that the user affected by arbitration enforcement needs to file the request themselves? Sandstein states above that "the sanction cannot be overturned outside of such an appeal ", in the tone of a person quoting a rule, but if that's a rule, I'm not aware of it. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC).

The rule is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications: "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction". Sandstein 21:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Sandstein, sorry. I was just trying to add a bit more, but got an edit conflict. Yes, the DS thing says "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction", but a "request" needn't be phrased as an "appeal"; it can be for example a request for review of your action. MONGO has left, whether for good (I hope not), or not, and is clearly not up for making an appeal. I don't think that should prevent community, or arbcom, discussion. Let's not be too lawyerly here. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC).

" Yes, the DS thing says "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction", but a "request" needn't be phrased as an "appeal"; it can be for example a request for review of your action" - honest question; if that's true, what's the difference? Between a "request" and an "appeal"? Wouldn't a "request to review an action", for all practical intents and purposes, be equivalent to an appeal made on someone's behalf? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, while I can somewhat see where you're coming from, I don't think it was the intent of the Arbitration Committee to preclude all administrator peer review on AE sanctions if the sanctioned editor chooses not to appeal the sanctions, and I would be interested to seek clarification from ArbCom on that front if this isn't clear. If we want to be technical, it's my understanding that the whole section Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators is about an uninvolved administrator asking for a modification, not the sanctioned editor. Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, WP:AC/DS definitely allowed Sandstein to take this action unilaterally, and based on the comments of those who are more experienced in this area than me, it does seem no editor can bring an appeal (request for modification, whatever you call it) except for the sanctioned editor themselves. I haven't really read into the particulars of this specific case, but this issue is interesting to me from an procedural standpoint because it seems that what we have is a situation where one person has made a decision that no one else can even request review for, and there is something about that that strikes me as going against what ArbCom originally had in mind for discretionary sanctions. I guess if the sanctioned editor is unwilling to proceed, then we can't. Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a good reason to require appeals to at least be approved by sanctioned editors: they should control the timing of the appeal, when they feel ready to proceed. Allowing anyone to appeal takes this initiative away from them and robs their ability to guide the initial phases of the appeal (if someone makes a poor appeal, it can easily fail without the merits of the case being properly examined). As the editors who are most affected by the sanction, they should retain this right. isaacl (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• This should not have been moved from the main page. In fact, the thread should have been re-opened. It can't ever be up to one admin to decide to close something against consensus. The result now is that we have discussions on multiple pages. Sandstein, this is not an appeal. This is an objection to your decision and the way you reached and enforced it. Please undo the topic ban, re-open the thread, and allow the discussion to continue. SarahSV 21:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"It can't ever be up to one admin to decide to close something against consensus. The result now is that we have discussions on multiple pages." - Sarah, that's how AE works. That's how it's worked for many years. Maybe right, maybe wrong, but it is what it is. It's sort of funny that some people are only realizing this now, that one of their friends got sanctioned. (Also I'm not so sure the report was closed against consensus).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. Did you even bother to read WP:AC/DS?- MrX 22:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Who are you two? Seriously, do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarah, as one who is editing virtually only articles which are under Discretionary sanctions, I believe Volunteer Marek is correct here. Non involved admins are given very wide powers, Huldra (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and Huldra, I know that Sandstein does it, but can you think of another example, one not involving Sandstein, where an admin simply ignored the views of uninvolved admins at AE? I'm not talking about imposing a sanction without a discussion. I mean one where discussion is taking place but is ignored. I understand about the wide powers, but I do not see them being used against consensus. If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate seeing examples (or just one will do). SarahSV 22:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It happens. But here I don't think it's accurate to say that "an admin simply ignored the views of uninvolved admins at AE". NeilN disagreed with a topic ban. BU_Rob13 agreed with a topic ban. Drmies was ambiguous. Vanamonde was ambiguous leaning agree with topic ban. So you have "ambiguity leaning topic ban", which then Sandstein implemented. It's not a strong consensus but enough to make the close legitimate. Like I said, this is how AE works - there's often some disagreement among admins on the best course of action then somebody says "well, I'll go ahead and close it as I see fit, thanks for the input". Sandstein himself (and whiskey knows I've had my disagreements) generally refers to the admin who imposed the original sanction which is more than you could say for a lot of admins at WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarah, what I see from the discussion is no obvious consensus, in such a case the closing admin always makes a judgement call. In the IP area I have seen Sandstein block/ban people hard and fast on both sides. With him: you follow the rules....or suffer the consequences Huldra (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on this (as well as the recent DHeyward thread, and the Volunteer Marek/Lambden thread, and Coffee's recent Discretionary Sanctions actions), I am starting to believe that having "discretionary sanctions" for American Politics is a net negative. Perhaps a full arbitration case is necessary to determine whether discretionary sanctions should be replaced with some other system. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Like Dave Mustaine said I want to see this "other system" before I sign up and why exactly is it better. Really, 90% of the problem is the "consensus required" provision. That's how almost ALL these problematic cycles of report/sanction/follow-up report/follow-up sanction start. Get rid of that and you've solved most of the problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I'd be careful with that. Discretionary sanctions are very useful for minimizing the disruption caused by new editors and editors new to the area as well as giving experienced editors something to think about before clicking Publish. --NeilN 22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of Chesterton's fence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I doubt if this will fly, but the drama reduction thing at this point is for Sandstein to reopen the discussion and seek a consensus admin decision. I say this seeing that there appears to be a admin variation in the range of possible sanctions against MONGO. Personally, I think Sandstein took the clearer, if harsher, way but, perhaps, had they sought a consensus solution, the outcome would have been a lot better.--regentspark (comment) 22:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, this is how WP:AE works. It's how it's worked for years. Dozens if not hundreds of editors have been sanctioned or not sanctioned under this very process. The drama here is only because this time it happened to a MONGO.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know MONGO from a hole in a wall (sorry MONGO). What I did was look at the evidence presented and tried to craft a remedy that would address the behavior and editor history. I'd like to think I would use the same process for any case. --NeilN 22:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that. But as you note, it won't happen. We seem to be moving further and further away from discussion, towards a more autocratic "admin-rule" state these days. Even daring to question the actions of these admins is (apparently) tantamount to a blockable offence. "This is how it works"! "for years"! Yes, and that's how all regimes maintain the status quo. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If it has been happening for years then we aren't really "moving" anywhere, are we? We've always been there. The only difference is that this time it happened to someone with lots of Wiki friends (for better or worse, nothing wrong with having friend). Also your points would have more salience if you avoided the hyperbole (stuff about "regimes" etc.).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think everyone here would welcome a discussion about whether AE should be reformed, but I disagree that we are moving towards a more autocratic "admin-rule" state these days. I agree with Volunteer Marek that this drama wouldn't be happening if it were not about MONGO. His retirement (not his first), has brought out a lot of emotion and irrationality.- MrX 22:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You mis-read, you didn't even recognise your own words. Never mind. Regime is just about right, far from hyperbole. Don't patronise me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I was privately asked to comment here or somewhere. Anyway, I had Bishonen protect my talkpage to avoid any drama fest there, not that I expected after all these years that many would miss me, but in case that was the case I did not want anyone misunderstanding the reason I was topic banned or to assume that a grave injustice had occurred. I made some hasty comments (not my first as I do write passionately at times) that were highly insulting to a number of editors. I was wrong to make so many deep insults and I do need to remind myself that we all should try and pretend we are sitting in the same room together, maybe we have vastly divergent opinions, maybe we can find commonality, but we all and especially me need to be a whole lot nicer to each other. While I do not agree that the precise penalty that was applied was accurate (a civility parole site-wide would have made more sense, or even a block actually), but Sandstein seems to have modified his original thoughts to accommodate those that had chimed in and had called for a less draconian penalty than he had initially considered. Nevertheless, I had planned on sitting out from editing entirely until this 3 month topic ban expired, partly because I was worried I may inadvertently violate it and not be able to adequately explain my action or not have enough community trust to avoid a deeper sanction. I am also of the thinking that if the community felt I was not trustworthy enough to behave appropriately in one venue, then I would omit editing everywhere, at least for the time being, or indefinitely if need be. I will not have anymore to say on this matter for a day anyway as I do know there is a process for appeal but I dare not go that route if its going to be a dramafest or anger some editors needlessly.--MONGO 23:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)