Wikipedia talk:Community discretionary sanctions

Proposer's rationale

This proposal flows from the Arbitration Committee's request to the community to

engage in a policy discussion and clarify, on an appropriate policy page, whether and under what circumstances an administrator may direct that a given editor is banned from editing a particular page or on a particular topic (outside the context of arbitration enforcement), without first attaining a consensus for the ban on a noticeboard, and if so, how such bans are to be reviewed. Such discussion should seek to attain consensus on a policy in this area within one month from the close of this case.

— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure urged, passed 7 to 1 on 13 September 2009

This page proposes such a policy that adopts the solution used by the Arbitration Committee in several cases dealing with persistent nonconstructive behavior in notoriously conflict-laden topic areas. These include Eastern Europe (October 2007), the Balkans (December 2007), Palestine and Israel (January 2008), Armenia and Azerbaijan (January 2008), 9/11 conspiracy theories (April 2008), Homeopathy (June 2008) and probably more.

In each of these cases, the Arbitration Committee adopted similar remedies entitled "discretionary sanctions" allowing any "uninvolved administrator ..., on his or her own discretion, [to] impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ... if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The remedies make such sanctions subject to appeal. This proposal is an adaptation of these remedies in the form of a policy intended to apply to all of Wikipedia, not just the specific trouble spots mentioned above.

This approach has the following advantages:

• It adapts a process with which we have already almost two years worth of experience (see the sanctions logs of the cases linked to above). We do not have to invent anything new.
• That process has functioned (to my knowledge) without substantial problems or objections, notably without generating a general feeling that administrators are abusing the authority granted under these remedies.
• If it has worked in Wikipedia's most contentious topic areas, it stands to reason that it will work across the board.
• It does not require a cumbersome new layer of bureaucracy (committees, boards and so on), but relies on the existing framework of noticeboards, community discussion and consensus.

Thank you for your consideration.  Sandstein  16:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The best way to kill a good idea at Wikipedia is to submit a proposal. Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

General

• Strong oppose – either has to be made technically possible (per-page blocking not necessarily a bad idea) or abandoned. The proposal is slightly bureaucratic, slightly haphazard, very open to abuse, and so on. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 17:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we look at these very general criticisms in the light of our experience with the identical remedies applied by ArbCom in multiple contentious areas (see above), I believe that they do not bear out. As far as I know, few if any editors have seriously complained about these remedies being applied in a particularly bureaucratic, haphazard or abusive manner.  Sandstein  19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea has merit, although I reserve my full support at the moment. I would like to see a more detailed explanation of what an admin should do before instituting discretionary sanctions. In the past, these types of sanctions have flowed from Arbcom, and if we are to bring the authority for this down to the individual administrator we need to more clearly delineate what steps must be taken to help/warn the user before the sanctions are applied. Is it a series of escalating warnings? ANI discussion? User RfC/wikiquette notice? Karanacs (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My goal in drafting this was to keep as closely as possible to the existing ArbCom remedies, because at least we know that they seem to work, and to refrain from introducing instruction creep. I believe the one precondition currently envisaged, a specific warning from an uninvolved admin, is quite adequate to prevent abuse, especially considering that we allow blocks (which are much more serious sanctions) in principle without any warning or discussion at all.  Sandstein  19:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, there is at present to much fixation on blocking editors from all editing, whereas they actually just require removing from a single disruptive area. Agreed it could be messy, as in is he allowed to edit that page but i'm sure that could be easily clarified. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm really not comfortable with this. There is nothing in WP:BAN that backs up the idea that bans may be issued by individual admins acting without consensus. Areas of Wikipedia under discretionary sanctions from ArbCom are treated in a special way because of a long pattern of disruption. If we give admins the authority to apply discretionary sanctions wherever they feel it is necessary, we're going to see a lot of them applied. Discretionary sanctions, especially non-voluntary ones, should be rare and should be issued only with good reason. I will write a competing proposal, and post here about it. Mangojuice^talk 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, there's nothing in WP:BAN, which is why ArbCom has asked us to elaborate a new policy. I appreciate your worry that such remedies would be over-used, but I believe that the record of them being applied in even hyper-contested areas such as Israel/Palestine show that they are generally used with restraint, in particular because they require a prior specific warning by an uninvolved admin. I see no specific reason to believe that the experience would be otherwise in other topic areas.  Sandstein  19:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• (Caveat: This is purely my individual opinion.) Repeating what I've said elsewhere: I think the distinction between blocks and bans, at least as it has arisen in the past couple of years in Wikipedia discussions, is a false distinction. Bans are social constructs prohibiting contributions, which can be as broad as the entire site or as narrow as a single mainspace article. Blocks are nothing more than a technical measure used to enforce a sitewide ban and provide easily accessed documentation. I find it counterintuitive, and even illogical, to argue that administrators may impose siteside bans (via the blocking mechanism), yet are somehow prohibited or greatly restricted from imposing lesser bans on specific articles or topic areas. Vassyana (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• ArbCom has asked us to elaborate a policy, but I don't see why that policy cannot be an affirmation of WP:BAN -- basically, that admins cannot enact arbitrary sanctions on their own, but that they can come about as a result of community consensus. You are correct that bans are inherently social constructs -- that is exactly the point. How can one admin acting alone, without gathering consensus, impose a sanction that is essentially equal to community consensus for a sanction? Mangojuice^talk 03:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• because, as I see this, it is allowing administrators to impose lesser sanctions than outright blocks on editors already ripe for an outright block. I believe that adminstrators are currently overly timid to issue blocks on incivil editors (because an editing block seems to harsh, because it's too much work to watch the editor at the expiration of a temporary block, because blocks seem to cause more outrage than calm). I believe that this policy development will lead to a better WP:DR practice, and that WP:BAN is currently too brief. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This looks like a solid codification of existing practice, clearly and cogently written, and does not seem to expand anything. With respect to others' comments, I'm not sure where the conception arose that a ban needs prior community consensus but that is absolutely not the case, and in the case of bans made in contentious areas (Israel-palestine dispute, fringe science, etc.) would make bans impractical and defeat their very purpose. Thinking past any disputed cases, there are many housekeeping style bans that are utterly uncontroversial except for the affected editor (who may or may not choose to appeal a ban). Wikiepdia is a chaotic place that seems to be growing more chaotic, with more organized wikigaming in disputed areas, so tying the hands of administrators earnestly trying to do their work is not the way to go. Admins can do things "whenever they feel necessary", that's their role and the nature of administrator discretion. Admins have a set of rules for how and when to use their tools, and a review process, but other than a few special cases their role is executive, not as agents to enforce votes. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Time already that this was written. It is needed to stop disruptive editors more easily, and it's already implemented in practice. Admins are supposed to help to get the encyclopedia written and they need tools that allow them to stop disruption before good editors get burned out.

Also, with current policy, if an editor behaves badly in one page but behaves well in many other pages, then the admins are forced to block him to stop him at one page, and possibly lose one editor that could have continued editing if he had been topic banned quickly. Or they have to start a lenghty discussion that can end in nothing, or escalate and burn several editors before the editor gets banned anyways from that page. (and, as Vassayana says, admins can already block an editor and prevent him from editing any page, so why can't they tell the editor not to edit a few pages so they can keep improving the encyclopedia at the rest of pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed unless the change in consensus made by User:Hipocrite and reverted by User:Sandstein is reinstated. Admins are already elected on the silliest of criteria to have such unilateral powers. Pcap ping 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Look at it this way: Admins are currently given sledgehammers (the indefinite block tool) to wield unilaterally, and if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If we give admins that power, why don't we trust them to wield less serious tools, such as the authority to ban editors from reverting more than once per day on a given page? Such a minor restriction is often enough to solve a problem that the admin might otherwise have to block the user for. If we give admins more delicate tools, we can (and should) also expect them to use the sledgehammer much less often.  Sandstein  20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• The difference is that in your version you need a committee to undo a page block/ban handed out by one admin, whereas for a global block one (other) disagreeing admin is enough to undo it, as long as some consultation takes place to avoid misunderstandings etc. Pcap ping 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Technically, it always takes only one disagreeing admin to change the block log or, in this case, the sanctions log. The question is under what circumstances they should do so. The current wording of Wikipedia:BP#Unblocking is a sort of complicated fudge, allowing but strongly discouraging unblocks without consensus. I do not believe that we benefit by adopting this fudge for lifting less restrictive discretionary sanctions. But of course, reasonable people may disagree about this, and we may need to examine other compromise solutions.  Sandstein  21:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• First strike block + "no consensus" to unblock = bad policy that invites admin abuse. It's hard enough to get someone desysopped, i.e. lengthy ArbCom case to further endow any individual admin with broad discretionary powers. Pcap ping 21:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support but prefer version where lack of consensus = not banned. I'd note I also support a block rule where lack of consensus = not blocked. Hipocrite (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Hipocrite. If there is no consensus, then there is no consensus for the block or the ban. If the editor continues to misbehave, then supported will dwindle, consensus will form against the editor, the situation is self-correcting. If consensus is not required to block/ban someone, if it can be done because a minority have a grudge, then this is a disruptive, suppressive practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Not to mention that as currently formulated this proposal contradicts WP:WHEEL because the initiating admin can claim the opposing admin has "no consensus". The WP:WHEEL policy errs on the side of caution in 1 vs. 1 admin differences of opinion, assuming that an administrative action should not be enforced in case of "no consensus". In contrast, the current proposal does exactly the opposite. Pcap ping 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • We have to look at this proposal compared to the current blocking policy and practice, which does allow blocks without (articulated) consensus. Most blocks are never community-discussed (or else Wikipedia would break down). As I argue in more detail below, we should want admins to use sanctions, which are less restrictive, instead of blocks. That won't happen if it is too difficult to get discretionary sanctions to stick, while blocking remains easy and effective and does not require much discussion. What we should do is make sanctions at least as easy for admins to apply as blocks are today (i.e., quite easy). Then we can think about making blocks harder to apply because sanctions will most often be sufficient, except for vandalism-only accounts and such.  Sandstein  22:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • We don't delete an article at AfD when there's no consensus to do so (default is keep). Likewise, we don't block editors when there is no consensus; any reviewing admin can remove a block, although in 1 vs. 1 diverging admin opinion cases, a review discussion sometimes takes place on ANI. So, the bar for removing an editor's (basic) editing rights should not be "no consensus for you have them". Pcap ping 23:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Opposed to this entire idea. "Admins" are entrusted with access to a set of tools, nothing more. This seems to be an attempt to turn them all into moderators, which is something that Wikipedia has done fine without for years now. This proposal is not needed, and the behavior it encourages in those entrusted with access to tools is damaging to the project.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• I support the idea, but the current wording of the proposal is too bureaucratic. Administrators need to have the ability to stop an editor from causing disruption. If that editor is only causing a disruption on one page, but making constructive edits elsewhere, it makes no sense to issue a site-wide block. It would be better if the software were capable of blocking only on certain pages, but this proposal is a step in the right direction. It is a necessity that the community be able to overturn any discretionary sanctions imposed by a single administrator. -Atmoz (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose What is necessary in some extremely heated areas is not a good idea for all of Wikipedia. This gives to much power to admins and is likely to be misused. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Qualified oppose on the grounds that administrators are not inherently moderators. While they, as a function of having the blocking tools, may take actions which constitute moderation, there is no specific authority inherent in their actions, and they should not be given that authority, as it opens up possibilities for abuse by encouraging admins to take matters into their own hands rather than using discussion. Essentially, I mean to say that "being bold" should not apply to the blocking tool. That being said, situations such as Taemyr mentions below where an admin offers a warning essentially in the form of a topic ban are acceptable. The key here is making sure that no one user or admin has the power to decide unilaterally that some user should be excluded from (some part of) the project, given that the user's contributions are not vandalism. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. Administrators are the de facto moderators of Wikipedia if only because they are authorized by WP:BP to use the block tool (among other tools) to stop disruption without first having to ask the community (or anybody else) whether the conduct at issue does constitute disruption. They are in a position of authority, whether or not one likes it, even if it may not be politically correct to say so. This proposal would just give them an additional (and generally less restrictive) tool to exercise that authority to stop disruption, and not more substantive authority; another mop, so to speak. The potential of abuse is inherent in any position of authority, of course, and abuse will undoubtedly occur (as it does now with blocks). But I believe that the possibility of appeals and eventual desysop through arbitration will effectively counteract it. In a recent case, an administrator was desysopped in part for misuse of the block tool; whatever one may think of that decision, there is every reason to believe that ArbCom will similarly react to any abuse of sanctions.  Sandstein  16:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose After being banned myself from even mentioning the word Russia, or a Russian person's name, or anything even related to Russia in any way, shape or form, by the very person who initiated this policy discussion, one can see that such a policy is open to abuse by admins in areas which are under sanctions, without allowing to act like that in all areas on WP. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, ridiculous idea: We have more than enough Admins pushing their own agendas and subsequently causing disruption and the departure of leser editors as it is. That is before we even begin to consider the numerous schoolchildren (or Admins that act like children) who seem to be promoted. In short, Admins have too much power already. These powers need severely curtailing not extending. I would fight to my wiki-death to prevent this becoming anything approaching policy. In fact, I almost consider its mere proposition to be blatant trolling. Giano (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. A point has been made that allowing admins to issue a "lesser restriction" (such as a topic ban) is OK because they already have much more powerful tools (such as blocking from any editing, including indef-blocking). I believe this to be a faulty premise. While something like a topic-ban is indeed effectively a "lesser restriction", it is also much more prone to an individual admin's judgment, attitude, POV, or even current mood. It doesn't take a genius to block an "i like pie" vandal for a week, or a guy who keeps calling anyone who questions him nasty names and refuses to co-operate for a month, but it should take more than one person when a less clear-cut decision is involved. The boundaries of what merits a block are fairly well-defined and the block can be reviewed relatively easily in a short time; with topic bans we enter a vast grey area where nothing is ever certain, and where a rogue admin with a particular POV can be a tsar and a god under a cover of "pre-emptive actions". This kind of problem is often apparent with simple blocks even, but at least they are easy to detect and fix.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:22, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think so. If the boundaries of what merits a block are fairly well-defined (and that's arguably often not the case), it's because we have long experience with blocks. In time, similar community standards will evolve about discretionary sanctions, perhaps including an expectation of escalating sanctions (from revert restriction to topic ban) much like we use escalating blocks now. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss this in appeals, which will be much more community-inclusive than today's {{unblock}} requests.  Sandstein  21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would still disagree. The boundaries of what merits a block are well-defined only in part because of our long experience with the blocks. Mainly, they are well-defined because they are easy to define (and straightforward to review). Not so with this proposal, which will cover mostly content interpretation/dispute issues. We already have pages and pages describing, recommending, and mandating dispute resolution processes to deal with the very same content issues, all the way up to the ArbComm itself. It is still a quagmire. I see no reason to believe this particular additional page, titled "Discretionary sanctions", is going to solve the problem neatly and once and for all, and I am not willing to try it out because the potential for its abuse is, in my opinion, is just too great and negates whatever grains of benefits it is trying to foster. As much as I want to believe our admins to be objective, warm, and fuzzy, over the course of my Wikipedia tenure I had more than one chance to see how it is not so. Not a pretty picture. Should we continue looking for better solutions? Absolutely yes. But if my past experiences are of any indications, this particular solution is so out of touch with reality that I cannot in good will support it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:19, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support. It's not perfect, but I have not seen any better suggestion how to fix the underlying problem. Better a half-solution than none. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose because this proposal misses the point. ArbCom asks for a good proposal how to minimize the administrative abuse related to topic bans (the case of William M. Connolley), but this proposal makes the possibility for abuse permanent. We need to clarify two questions in this proposal: (1) under which circumstances user "A" can be banned from editing article "X"?, and (2) what does it mean "an uninvolved administrator"? That was exactly the problem in William M. Connolley case. William acted in a good faith, but he had no clear rules to follow. William thought he was uninvolved, but ArbCom decided he was involved.

1. Question 1. There are several options. User "A" can be banned from editing article "X" if a) he made a 3RR violation in page "X" and was blocked (once or twice?); b) he made uncivil comments (including assumption of good faith) when discussed this page, c) if he "edit warred" in this article, d) if his participation was unhelpful as this administrator believes. I suggest to only use criteria a) and b) because they can be easily used by any administrator, but c) and d) can be used only by an administrator who was uninvolved and familiar with the subject of the article. And this is highly problematic (see below).
2. Question 2. There are several options. An uninvolved administrator is someone a) who has no conflict with the user; b) who does not edit in the area of content conflict; c) who has no working "relations" with the user, in a good or bad way. This is all highly problematic. If a user or his "friends" earlier complained about actions of the said administrator and administrator objected, does it constitute a conflict? Obviously, it does. If the administrator and user argued during an RfC or AfD, does it constitute a conflict? Yes, for many people it does, let's be honest. Can an administrator be involved if this user commented anywhere in his favor? Ridiculous? Not at all, because one of WP administrators recently was considered to be involved when commenting about me, simply because I commented previously in his favor.

So, I strongly suggest to write a completely different proposal, specifically about topic bans that limits ourselves to topic-banning only users who (a) made a 3RR violation in page "X" and was blocked for that (maybe a couple of times), or (b) made uncivil comments during the related discussion. The topic-banning should only be made from a small set of specific articles.Biophys (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see why we need this, isn't the current system working? Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 05:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose placing further burdens on our shrinking active admin corps to police vaguely-worded discretionary sanctions. I recommend that Arbcom impose discretionary sanctions only with due caution, and define the topic areas involved with greater precision. ("Articles related to subject X" or "Articles relating to subject X, broadly construed" is easy to say, isn't it?)

  I further recommend that Arbcom and the community at large jointly recognise that a topic ban or other discretionary sanction is an incentive to sockpuppetry. In other words, discretionary sanctions are expensive in scarce resources (administrator time) while being easy for a disruptive user to evade. They should be deprecated.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Mandates which dictate who can edit what (especially any long term solution) should not be decided by any one individual. We're supposed to be a community, and there are already enough "you're blocked/banned" because an individual doesn't happen to agree with someone's ideas or because of some individual's dislike of a perceived personality. Community decisions should be left to the community. — Ched :  ?  08:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is a terrible idea. Being able to block users is one thins: blocks have a technical basis and therefore are inherently enforceable, trackable, and reviewable by anyone. Bans, on the other hand, are a stronger statement with no technical basis and are therefore going to be inherently problematic. How do I know if a user is banned? How do I know who an administrator is banning? Is a user expected to know and understand that the fact someone told them "you're banned" is enforceable because that person is an admin? One random admin should not be able to levy arbitrary sanctions. Bans are and should remain a power held only by ArbCom and the community. Oren0 (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• If nothing else, I think that pretty well highlights one important problem: where blocks are clearly defined and precisely enforced by automated processes, neither of those is necessarily true of bans, which leaves an open door for all sorts of confusion and other malarky. Regardless of whether the proposal carries, that must be treated as a serious concern. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - too strong of a power for sysops.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Makes adminship too big of a deal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Topic bans are way too serious to not require community consensus.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 17:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose No way. Administrators do not set policy - community consensus does. Administrators implement community consensus. Blocks exist for a specific and limited reason - to enforce policy on things like disruptive or abusive editing. Allowing administrators to create their own policies is contrary to the very spirit of Wikipedia, and turns them into a privileged ruling class rather than users with extra tools granted for limited purposes. Ray^Talk 21:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Call me crazy, but I do not want that power. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – Administrators are not necessarily moderators, and we shouldn't be treating them like they are. That's why they're called sysops because of the additional technical tools given to them. MuZemike 02:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The idea of administrators using discretionary sanctions, is not new. The purpose of this policy proposal is not to authorize a new concept in discretionary sanctions, but instead to expand the areas in which discretionary sanctions may be used. I have added a "Background" section to the policy to make this more clear. --Elonka 04:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support in principle - from my perspective, it is desirable to give administrators a less extreme tool than a block. Given that and comments made here, it seems that a) long topic bans are more restrictive than a short block; and b) topic bans are typically applied for less well defined problems than those which garner blocks. However, if those could be addressed, so that sanctions do become a lesser alternative, than they might meet my desire of an alternative to the all-or-nothing approach that is the only option for administrators. Perhaps a more narrowly defined set of circumstances - something like saying that discretionary sanctions are offered as an alternative to a block, and therefore can only be applied by an admin when a block would have been an acceptable option? - Bilby (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I have seen too many instances of Admins with some religious, political or nationalistic point of view, or some favored hobby, or some scientific or pseudoscientific viewpoint seeking to exclude opposing points of view from articles which are the subject of contentious but legitimate debate, so the resulting article reads the way they favor. In their own minds, they may be just keeping the article "NPOV," but their viewpoint may not be the only reasonable one. This would make it too easy for them to "own" an article. Admins are not article moderators, and this would defacto make them such. As for an "uninvolved" admin imposing the topic ban without any preceding discussion on a forum such as WP:ANI, it would be easy for an admin who "owns" an article to email his buddy who shares his views, but has not posted in the article, and say "Please swat this fly for me." A topic ban should result only from a consensus on an open forum. A topic ban should not be a tool for every admin to use on impulse, to make a pesky opponent go away, with a difficult or tedious process required to undo it. Edison (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This proposal is not about allowing administrators to ban editors simply for having opposing points of view. It's about allowing administrators to deal with users who show persistent non-constructive behavior. Before any editor could have sanctions imposed on them, it would be required that an uninvolved administrator give them a specific warning on their talkpage, including diffs of problematic behavior. In practice, those diffs would have to show serious problems, not just examples of civil discussion with an opposing view. Since the warnings and any possible sanctions would also be logged on a centralized page, it would be easy to have community oversight over who was being warned, and what they were being warned for. --Elonka 16:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "The devil is in the details." Sites critical of Wikipedia's excesses have long noted admins blocking those who seek to put referenced info they do not like into articles. Edison (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - this will be gamed far too easily, and gives far too much unilateral power to sysops. Oren0 said it best above: "One random admin should not be able to levy arbitrary sanctions. Bans are and should remain a power held only by ArbCom and the community." Giving admins the power to ban users with the same enforceability as a community ban is a terrible idea. The Wordsmith_{(formerly known as Firestorm)}^Communicate 16:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There may be some confusion here. Administrators already use discretionary sanctions in many areas around the project, including revert restrictions and bans. The purpose of this policy proposal is not to authorize discretionary sanctions, but instead to expand the areas in which discretionary sanctions can be used, and to come up with a way by which these sanctions can be tracked and have proper oversight. If there is a concern that sanctions can be gamed, what would be more helpful is to think of how this might be gamed, and then build in proper safeguards to deal with any possible situations of abuse. --Elonka 17:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Administrators already use discretionary sanctions to successfully deal with many problematic areas on Wikipedia. To see sanctions which have been placed, go to Wikipedia:General sanctions, and click on the "Log" link on each line of the table to see detailed lists of which sanctions were placed, on whom they were placed, and which administrators placed them. Discretionary sanctions are an excellent tool at an administrator's disposal, which allows the use of minimal restrictions to help stabilize an article that may have been disrupted. For example, instead of using the sledgehammer of completely blocking an editor from Wikipedia, it can often be much more effective to simply ban that editor from editing one article where they are being disruptive. The problem though, is that currently discretionary sanctions are only authorized in a small number of topic areas, such as Israel/Palestine, Eastern Europe, 9/11, Armenia/Azerbaijan, etc. For articles in other topic areas, discretionary sanctions are not currently an option. So the reason that this new proposed policy is a good idea, is because it helps bridge this gap: It will allow administrators to use precisely targeted discretionary sanctions, in other areas of the project than just those which are listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions. --Elonka 02:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think such a proposal effectively turns administrators into "mini ArbComs". I am continually amazed by how willing ArbCom has increasingly become to involve itself in the creation of policy (something it has no mandate to do) yet how unwilling it is to make the tough decisions when it comes to user conduct (which last I checked was its only official pupose). This seems like yet another way to make decisions about problem users someone else's responsibility (and therefore fault if they get it wrong). If sanctions are needed, then surely it should not be beyond the wit of an administrator to gain a community consensus for those sanctions or, if a consensus cannot be achieved, to make a case to ArbCom for them to impose sanctions. WJBscribe (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem with taking things to ArbCom in non-consensus situations, is that the process is notoriously slow and time-consuming, taking weeks or months, and dozens (or hundreds!) of hours of work to make a case. All of which time and effort could be spent in much more productive pursuits to build the encyclopedia. Especially if all that was really needed was for one admin to tell one editor, "Okay, you've been warned three times now. Stop editing that one article for a week now, and go do something else please." Insisting on lengthy discussions for each case of sanctions is often a waste of time, and most administrators have neither the time nor desire to "build a case" every time they see a place where sanctions would be useful. --Elonka 01:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Partial Support - Administrators already have the power to do whatever is reasonable and necessary to prevent disruption. In a situation where we can block somebody completely, we logically have the authority to do something less than a full block if we think that a lesser sanction would be better for the project. This proposal should not give administrators new powers they don't have today. We should just make clear what they are already permitted to do. Make it clear: If you can block somebody, you can choose to do something less. Jehochman ^Talk 08:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, I would like to argue against that line of thinking. You should be faced with the difficult choice of imposing the serious remedy or doing nothing. Having the lesser remedy available simply makes it too easy to impose your will on others. Keep in mind here that I'm not leveling any accusations, but even lesser "admin remedies" are serious actions, and anything to lessen that perception is a Bad Idea. It seems to be a fairly long established institutional norm that Administrators are not "moderators" here on en.wikipedia, and I see no reason not to maintain the status quo in this area. We're all generally in equal footing here, and that is an issue of core importance to the continuation of our primary goal (building an actual encyclopedia).
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  PS.: now that I've taken the time to read it, I see that MangoJuice has expressed my own views much more thouroughly at #Topic bans are not a win-win.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  Topic ban in lieu of block is a good thing. Topic ban when a block would not be justified is a bad thing. We need to be careful how this policy is written. I do not want to give administrators extra powers. I want them to use the lightest touch possible with the powers they already have. Jehochman ^Talk 08:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  See though, that's where we disagree. I see what you're getting at, and I can even sympathize with and admire the sentiment behind it (having been in the "hot seat" myself, I can definitely sympathize), yet I still don't agree with implementing it. There's a psychological issue underneath this that we're dealing with. If it's easier for admins to impose remedies, then almost by definition they will be imposed more often. The use of any remedy is serious, even if it is "lesser", and so providing a means to aussage the guilt of those entrusted to impose them is ultimately counter productive. As I said above, read through #Topic bans are not a win-win, as that expressed this point more fully.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  When there's a battlezone article we go to arbitration, spend a few months, and then the committee predictably implements article probation and encourages the liberal dispensing of discretionary sanctions. What's the point? Why not encourage admins to do what's necessary from the start? ArbCom should not be authorizing discretionary sanctions. If a dispute comes to them they should figure out who's been naught, who's been nice and take care of it. Jehochman ^Talk 09:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  As annoying as it sometimes is, process for it's own sake is sometimes (within limited constraints) a good thing, as it prevents "us" from (normally unintentionally) getting out of control. Procedure acts as an important throttle to activities, since time is an important component to reasonable human activity (which is something we tend to forget in our modern, "instant coffee" society, especially online). I often force myself to throttle down, and I find that the benefits severely outweigh the negatives. Aside from all of that though, the simple fact is that there are no real "moderators" here on en.wiki, and there shouldn't be. I know that others view you as, and you yourselves often have the self view that you are moderators, but when the cards are actually on the table... you're not. I think that overall that is a good thing to this project (despite the obvious downside to it), and this is one small attempt at changing that.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, just as I would oppose a technical feature to block an editor from editing a particular page or an entire namespace. Slippery slope. I worry that many administrators would view these sorts of sanctions as "no big deal", and would not treat appeals to them seriously. Blocks are perfectly effective to prevent real disruption. HiDrNick! 13:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support I have, with two other admins, previously attempted to topic ban editors via an imposed editing restriction. I had considered that I would in future likely impose such a measure or similar unilaterally should a situation appear to justify it; I had no consideration that I was exceeding my remit as an admin to work to diminish disruption while allowing editors to continue contributing in other areas of the project. I would comment both that upon the decision to impose the restrictions a notice of same was posted at AN for visibility, and that the failure of one of the parties to stay within the restrictions resulted in an Request for Arbitration resulting in them receiving a more severe restriction on their activities than had been "imposed". Under the circumstances, I support the ability of admins to unilaterally impose topic or page bans and similar measures - providing that the community is given notice and argued opposition means that consensus for continuing restrictions is required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Jehocman. I think per-page topic bans are an excellent lesser remedy for editors who are just not behaving well in one specific area or page, but are otherwise positive contributors to Wikipedia. I've personally been taken to task by editors for using this remedy to deal with incivility on one particular page, even though the sanctioned editor later apologized for his behavior. The real question is what is the least invasive sanction needed to protect the encyclopedia from harm? Interpretations may differ as to what actions constitute sufficient harm to merit a sanction, but the admin-enacted topic ban should clearly be a tool in the kit. Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Unfortunately we have many poor decisions already being made by admins so having to have at least a few uninvolved eyes on a given situation would make sense. I you have a case, make it, and it should be rather obvious to all concerned. Asa suggestion ensure that topic bans are standardized and fair. Our banning system needs to be more in line with how blocking works with documentation for all involved in the process. -- Banjeboi 07:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Way too much potential for abuse. Die4Dixie (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on "Appeals"

I am still keen on the idea of fast and easy resolution of WP:AN/I appeals, such as previously proposed, as opposed to consensus debates at WP:AN/I. Reasons:

• Such debates on WP:AN/I could easily become long-winded, many-party marathons. This is not the purpose of WP:AN/I, would be to the detriment of WP:AN/I, and is actually the purpose of WP:DR.
• This proposal, as written, could be used by an opinionated administrator to pre-empt, of even derail, the proper WP:DR process.

I think these WP:AN/I appeals should be easy and drama-free, and if there is contention or drama or lengthiness, the problem should be taken to WP:DR

If I may try a proposal again:

• Any uninvolved administrator may impose a specific ban on any editor in any case where an editing block is justifiable. If the editor wishes to protest the ban, the editor may do so either by the normal WP:DR process, or by lodging an appeal at WP:AN/I
• If the editor lodges an appeal at WP:AN/I, the ban remains in full effect by default for 24 hours.

• During that 24 hours, if no three uninvolved admins support the ban, then the ban lapses at 24 hours. (A new ban may be imposed based on new actions by the editor)
• If three uninvolved admins oppose the ban, an no one commences a WP:DR process, then the ban lapses.

The numbers (three) are arbitrary. The designation of admins as the participants that count is also arbitrary, and could be substituted with “rollbacker”, “editor in good standing”, “autoconfirmed editor”, “editor entitled to vote in arb com elections”, or “editor”. I believe that “admin” is suitable, but that is not the at the heart of this proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What you're proposing is a way too complicated of a process... Pcap ping 02:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopelessly so, do you think? Note that dispute resolution remains one of wikipedia's biggest problems, and it is not being done well at the moment. I've just boldened the part which is new proposal. I happen to think it is way less complicated than having sporadic "requests for unbanning" consensus seeking discussions on WP:AN/I in parallel to any WP:DR processes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• A positive feature of this proposal is that it will usually place the onus on starting WP:DR procedures on the editor that administrators find at fault. At the moment, it is the aggrieved editors in disputes who find themselves having to prosecute through the non-trivial DR processes. Effectively, editors will be easily topic banned, and will be sent to WP:DR to resolve the problem, and they'll remain topic banned in the meantime. I've watched Abd (for many years); I think this would have benefited him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Consensus goes the wrong way here. Unless consensus favors the sanction, the ANI discussion should reverse the sanction. The default should be sanctionless. I have boldly made this change, but will not revert war over it and will revert my change on request. Hipocrite (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, have undone your change and will explain why:

• To begin with, the current ArbCom remedies, of which this is a generalization, also assume that a sanction stands if there is no consensus to overturn it. (At least this is what I believe is meant by "Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue.")
• Your text, which provides that a sanction is overturned "if the discussion has shown the initial sanction lacked community consensus" assumes a requirement to build consensus before issuing a sanction, which is incompatible with the idea of discretionary sanctions as provided for in the ArbCom remedies mirrored in this draft. That would be little better than our current practice of ad hoc noticeboard discussions resulting in community bans, which are seldom able to provide the kind of fine-tuned sanctions envisaged here.
• For the same reasons, any requirement that a sanction must have positive consensus even after the fact would critically diminish the effectiveness of sanctions. This is because articulated positive community consensus is a very rare thing in practice; the silent majority of users expects admins to do their job without having to endorse every one of their actions. Likewise, even indefinite blocks, which are much more serious sanctions, are in practice not undone without positive consensus that the block was bad.
• Requiring positive consensus would allow any clique of sufficiently dedicated activists (as is often found around both sides of most emotionally charged topics) to prevent any one of their number from being sanctioned just by turning up at ANI and shouting loudly, preventing consensus from being formed and driving away uninvolved normal editors who may be disinclined to get involved in nasty arguments.  Sandstein  19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you ennumerate the key differential here, and as such we have a difference of opinion. I'd like to hear what others have to say. Your second point, however, is fully valid - I should have written "would have lacked community consensus."

I don't like the fact that indef bans stand without positive consensus, so I guess I'll stand aside, as you raise a vaild parallel there.

PS: Regarding point 4 - individuals who are unwilling to engage in community discussions except to say "OVER MY DEAD BODY" should be ignored. Let's see if anyone else feels about positive consensus (like blocks) or negative consensus (like bans) should be the default here. Hipocrite (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

To address the last point, yes, obviously invalid arguments can be ignored, but that does not resolve the problem that people who feel strongly about something (i.e. who oppose a sanction) are much more likely to participate in a discussion than those who do not (uninvolved users who don't care about esoteric disputes, or supporters of the sanction, who already have what they want). This is a form of selection bias. Also, because there is no easy way to limit the number of appeals, your rule is an incentive to appeal away until a "no consensus" result forms by chance. (Repeated AfDs have a similar problem in reverse.) Finally, it is possible that only very few people may participate in any given discussion (because the others don't care or agree with the sanction but don't bother to say so), which would lead to many more "no consensus" outcomes.

All of this makes it too difficult to achieve positive consensus even in situations where a block would probably have stuck, because getting out of a block with the {{unblock}} method is very difficult in practice (I know because I work in CAT:RFU). In other words, if we make it too difficult to use discretionary sanctions and make them stick, admins have an incentive to continue to use the much cruder and very effective block tool. Nobody wants that. Accordingly, sanctions should be at least as easy to use as blocks, and preferably easier. (Also, blocking might become harder if lighter sanctions become easily available.)  Sandstein  21:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You raise very good points that I'll have to noodle on. Hipocrite (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I support User:Hipocrite's amendment. Pcap ping 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Hipocrite here. Right now this proposal is worded as if a central discussion would take place in a codified way, with a closer who reads the consensus. If that's the process, it's point ought to be to determine if the sanction imposed has consensus. I oppose this proposal, but if we want one that is like blocks where such actions have support by default, its review process ought to be like blocks: admins should be empowered to remove sanctions once they have familiarized themselves with the situation fully, just as admins are allowed to overturn blocks. Mangojuice^talk 06:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking, deletion and protection have always shared a common principle - that what any administrator does, any other administrator can undo. The arbitration committee has endorsed this view; wheel warring penalties typically come on the reblock or third action, not the unblock or second action. Discretionary sanctions evolved as a tool to combat the worst, most persistent and disruptive disputes on Wikipedia. Allowing administrators to impose sanctions that could not be overturned except by clear consensus on an arbitration venue hasn't been uncontroversial, even in these areas where it is obvious to everyone that unusual measures are necessary and the sanctions themselves are prescribed and limited by the committee.

This proposal establishes a new class of administrator authority - unilateral bans - and extends it to any topic area, with or without a prior assessment of need by the arbitration committee. These bans are not centrally logged either by page or via MediaWiki; they are mutable, in that the terms set by one administrator may bear no resemblance to the terms set by another; there are no restrictions on the scope or duration of these bans; consensus, either prior to or in support of a ban, is not required (above, Sandstein argues that only a clear consensus on an administrator noticeboard can overturn a discretionary sanction). This proposed policy breaks the principle of what any admin can do, another can undo. It's an enormous expansion of the authority of an administrator, and while there are some administrators experienced and intelligent enough that I would trust them with this new right there are many more that I would not. Nathan ^T 13:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved... or at least bypassed?

I believe that the latest edit to the relevant section, by SmokeyJoe, now does not state that a consensus against the sanction is needed, just that reviewing admins must take any action "according to community consensus." I certainly can live with that.  Sandstein  20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved

I've clarified "Uninvolved" such that it's clear personal and topic conflicts are different. Admins can't tool on topics they are involved on or people they are in conflict with. You don't have to be both, just one. You are not in conflict with people who are angry you used tools on them. This prevents me, if I had tools, from tooling on Cold Fusion to anyone, or on Uncle G, anywhere. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But if Hipocrite and I are both of the same viewpoint on some issue, or both fans or opponents of something, and he is in conflict with a pesky opponent who wants to make the article say things he disagrees with, he could secretly email me (uninvolved in editing that article) to come and ban the pest from editing it, thereby preserving it the way we like it (not that Hipocrite or I would ever do that). Edison (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not at all what WP:INVOLVED says. Admins CAN use tools on anyone where that tool use is objectively reasonable, but are encouraged to get another set of eyes if they're involved, such that accusations of bias can be defrayed. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Logging

Speaking as an admin with extensive experience with discretionary sanctions (see User:Elonka/ArbCom log), overall, I like this proposal, especially that it allows uninvolved admins to use discretionary sanctions in topic areas that may need it, even if those topic areas have not yet been specifically authorized via ArbCom.

One concern I do have though, is the current suggestion for logging sanctions directly into a user's userspace. This is probably stronger than necessary, and indeed, may be counter-productive. One of the advantages to discretionary sanctions so far, is that they've been a relatively soft tool to use, without a permanent "black mark" in a user's record (such as happens with a block log). Instead, an admin could simply post a note to a user's talkpage to say (for example) to avoid editing a certain article for a week, the admin would log the sanction to the ArbCom case page, and it could be left at that.

If we do go the route of having a "sanction" page in someone's userspace, there should also be provisions for how long it would need to stay there before it could be deleted.

Even better though, would be to have a centralized page for discretionary sanctions. This would provide the following benefits:

• The page could be watchlisted, to see all "non-ArbCom-Case" sanctions, regardless of who they were being placed on, and who was placing them
• The page would provide a central location for recording sanctions that were article-specific, rather than user-specific.
• With a list of all recent discretionary sanctions in one place, it would be easier to spot trends in certain topic areas, than if the logs were only being made on a per-user basis.

Just my $0.02, Elonka 01:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I support a centralised sactions page. Expired sactions should be removed without official record beyond the page history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• The per-user logging has the advantage of being easily accessible through a link such as in {{userlinks}}, like the block log, and it allows easier WP:RTV implementation (through page deletion). A centralized page might also grow too big. Though we could of course do both, if required, or a bot could collect data from individual pages if entries are made in a standard format. It is another matter whether expired or reversed sanctions should be struck through, archived or deleted from the page; we can discuss it separately if a proposal like this one is about to be implemented.  Sandstein  05:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions aren't used that often, that a centralized page would become cumbersome. For example, look at all the sanctions that have ever been placed in a "hotbed" area such as Israel-Palestine, at WP:ARBPIA. In nearly two years, it's still all on one part of the page. Sanctions in non-ArbCom areas would probably be reasonably rare. I do like the standardized entry format though, so that a bot could collect information from user talk pages. This could also be useful for other situations such as "admin warnings", especially in cases where users routinely delete the warnings from their talkpages. But if there were some sort of standard edit summary, or keyword in an edit summary, they could be bot-harvested. --Elonka 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The example of a centralized logging page, looks great: Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions/Log. --Elonka 04:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We already have a place: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. There is a section for Arbcom and the community. The sections could be reorganized as appropriate, and sub pages can be created if the one page gets too long. Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans are not a win-win

There may be a temptation to think that an admin directly topic-banning a user who is disruptive within one area may be a win-win situation: we don't prohibit them from making productive edits, and they don't have to be blocked. But there's a paradox here.

• If a user is disruptive in one area but doesn't have a well-established record of positive contributions elsewhere, then a topic-ban is a waste of effort: we should just issue a block. The user may be offered an unblock if they agree to a topic ban, but there's no reason to try to impose such a ban or form consensus for it.
• If a user is disruptive in one area but has a clear record of productive, valued contributions elsewhere, it is highly disrespectful to impose long-term sanctions without community consensus. We ought to remember that this user is a volunteer and cannot be expected to continue making their positive contributions when they have been so formally sanctioned in the community. At least, these users deserve the courtesy of there being a community discussion and consensus before such sanctions are issued.

These same principles apply to revert restrictions, civility parole, et cetera. It's one thing in those specific topics where ArbCom has indicated there is a difficult enough environment that discretionary powers are granted to uninvolved admins -- there, the ArbCom ruling, which a user must always be warned about before such sanctions are imposed, serves not only as a clear warning of what is expected, but also demonstrates immediately that there will be community will behind the ban if one is issued. And, even if that leaves too much to the discretion of uninvolved admins, at least ArbCom has decided that this particular area of Wikipedia needs this extra level of protection. Mangojuice^talk 05:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In the first case, I agree that we should continue to impose blocks, which this proposal does not prevent or discourage. In the second case, I feel that the community interest in stopping disruption in the affected area (which will inhibit content production by many others) usually outweighs our interest in any content production that the user may stop to make in other areas, and that it is principally the user who is disrespectful to everybody else by disrupting Wikipedia in the first place. But however one feels about this, as long as admins can and do just unilaterally block such users, it makes no sense that they cannot impose lesser sanctions instead. In both cases, there can be an after-the-fact community discussion to resolve disagreements, but in the case of a editing restriction such discussions will tend to produce less drama than unblock discussions and are technically easier to implement, because the sanctioned user can participate.  Sandstein  05:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions are not lesser penalties than anything other than very long-term blocks. If I put someone on a 6-month topic ban, that is less than a 6-month block or an indefinite block. But it's not less than a 1-week or 1-month block, which could very well have been the appropriate block length for the situation. Mangojuice^talk 06:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That depends entirely on how wide the topic ban is. Even a 6 month topic ban on a very wide topic, such as say US politics or the Middle East, will probably cover less than 5% of our articles and is therefore objectively a lesser sanction than a 1 week block. Of course, in many cases a topic ban will not be required and a revert restriction will suffice.  Sandstein  06:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That just doesn't make any sense on many levels. Most importantly, though I believe some editors would be willing to trade their 1 week block for the 6 month ban, others would not. This proposal is not about voluntary restrictions, so we should focus on the case of those who would not want to have a 6-month ban. Such a ban is more severe in the eyes of the restricted user, and that perception matters. Also, the idea that the relative frequency in Wikipedia of an editor's preferred topics having any relevance on the severity of a ban is ludicrous. If someone made 5% of their edits to one topic, one might think that a topic ban is approximately 20 times less harsh than a full block. But what about an editor that makes 80% of their edits to the area in question? Or 25%? It's not less to them, no matter how rare the articles are. Finally, it's pretty presumptuous of you to declare that it is "objectively" a lesser sanction when there is nothing objective about it. Mangojuice^talk 06:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We can disagree about which sanction is harder under what circumstances, but I think we can agree that in principle, admins should use (and be able to use) the least restrictive sanction required to stop disruption. If some topic bans at least are less restrictive than some blocks, it is counterproductive to deny admins the ability to impose a ban or revert restriction, and force them to impose a block that may be too restrictive under the given circumstances.  Sandstein  09:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with that. I don't know why you think I would. I think the community, after discussion, can settle on alternate solutions to blocks to handle these exceptional cases, but I do not think admins should be doling them out at their own discretion. Sure, I would trust that most of those decisions will be correct ones that would be backed up, but (1) there is no reason to be in such a rush that you can't discuss with other admins first, and (2) I don't want to see these restrictions, when legitimately placed, lose their authority because some bans on some people end up being ignored due to lack of community consensus. Mangojuice^talk 13:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Mangojuice gave several good arguments here. Even ArbCom-delegated topic bans imposed by a single admin sometimes prove controversial. It's enough to check the latest ANI thread on Russavia vs. Sandstein to convince yourselves of that. Since most editors are active in only a few content areas (copy-editing and similar formatting activities excluded), lengthy topic bans come closer to site-wide bans in their severity compared to short-term blocks, say for 3RR. So, it's very likely many such topic bans will be contested. Consequently, we need a simple and effective consensus procedure so that such topic bans don't become debacles. Pcap ping 14:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Could we dispense with the word ban?

An admin telling a user "In my oppinion your disruption on page Foo is severe enough that a block is warranted. However since your contribution to other area is constructive I will not block you unless you make further edits to Foo." Is unproblematic provided said disruption exists, since it is merely a statement of fact and the action the admin suggests falls within his purvey. (An admin can both issue blocks and forgo to issue a block).

An admin telling a user "In my opinion the community have decided that your contributions to Foo is unwanted". Without prior discussion with the community is problematic.

Since a ban is a formal recognizion that an editors contributions is unwanted the latter statement is what the statement "I declare you banned from Foo" amounts to.

Could we allow admins to impose editing restrictions, enforced by blocks if necesarry, without needing to invoke a ban? Taemyr (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is just semantics. A ban is a ban, including in your first example, whether or not labeled as such.  Sandstein  09:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

From WP:Ban#Dealings with banned users; "Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact". I agree that the difference is in semantics, but semantics is important. It is different to tell a user, "Go away, you are not wanted." and "This behavior is disruptive and needs to be stopped." Taemyr (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We might as well just call these single-admin bans / sanctions what they are: warnings. They're warnings. They should not be ignored, but whether a user really will be blocked if they continue in the behavior is subject to the opinion of the next admin who comes along. Taemyr raises a very good point here. We probably shouldn't use the word ban, but if we don't, this is no different than a warning. And I don't believe warnings and bans are the same thing. Mangojuice^talk 13:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No not warnings, they are remedies for specific problems. The remedy is preventing an editor from editing a specific topic. While there is a warning involved the warning is the initial way to implement the remedy. Taemyr (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps if we called bans "mandatory wikibreaks" (perma-bans could be called "early retirement") and blocks could be call "timeouts", it would lead to a kinder, gentler Wikipedia? --Martintg (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The point isn't to be a gentler wikipedia. To point is to seperate out those users that the community has decided are unwanted. And for that we need to be able to distinguish between sanctions issued on behalf of a single admin and those sanctions that are issued by or on behalf of the entire community. Taemyr (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Temporary bans?

I tend to agree with Vassayana here, in thinking that this is a lesser sanction than administrators are already given the power to impose. I do however see that so far as I can tell all that has been discussed to date is apparently a full permanent ban from a page or subject. That is, in a way, perhaps less than productive.
Maybe one option would be to allow temporary bans from topics, which could presumably be enforced by blocks, and to request administrators who place a ban in excess of a given length of time to post a thread on one of the noticeboards regarding the subject. Then, if in the course of discussion there, it is determined that a ban of that period does not have community support, the ban can be limited to the default "longest" ban which can be imposed under these circumstances. Under such circumstances, I think it might be reasonable to allow the subject of the ban up to a given number of real posts (obvious copyediting not necessarily included) to prevent it becoming overlong, maybe three total content posts. It might also be possible to add, as a condition, that appeals of such bans could only be made by an established editor or admin other than the subject of the ban himself.
Were it entirely up to me (ha ha) I might say that any ban from a given article or group of related articles of three months or longer imposed under discretionary sanctions should be indicated on a board such as Elonka mentions above, and be subject to review o the kind I mention above on some relevant noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the time aspect is all that problematic. The problem is that the word 'ban', by WP:Ban, contains an element of beeing a comunity decision that an editor is unwanted. While there does not seem to be anyone here that argues against allowing editors some way to prevent an editor from editing a subject, I and some other editors object to the idea that an administrator can unilaterally and on behalf on the community declare an editor unwanted. Taemyr (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I recall some circumstance, ages ago, where I told two particularly irate users that I was going to block them if they posted at AN/I in the next five minutes -- basically a "time out" that did actually calm the situation down, since it gave other people time to catch up on the hotspot thread and speak a bit more reasonably. At the time I imagined that my doing so might get me into a fair bit of trouble (and perhaps rightly so!), but it seemed like the most amicable way to de-escalate their argument. Still, though, I was that conflicted over a unilateral ban of two users from one page for five minutes; just imagine, then, how I should feel applying a unilateral ban of arbitrary scope! I think this proposal might be easier to swallow if all such sanctions are immediately posted for review, at least until such time as clear practices regarding their use can be established. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• If topic bans are to be an effective sanction, they should have the full spectrum of timing that blocks do. Personally, I prefer conditional indefinite blocks and bans, because it makes clear that acknowledging and repudiating the behavior that cause the sanction is the only real condition for having the sanction lifted. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unclear

It is unclear what is being proposed. The opening section needs to be rewritten for clarification. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What's proposed is the policy itself. What clarification is needed?  Sandstein  17:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's all I needed. For some reason I thought DS was a policy and we are discussing some change of it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions are imposed on particular topic areas by the ArbCom as a remedy, if this is a proposal to introduce Discretionary sanctions generally across all of Wikipedia independent of ArbCom, this needs to be clarified in the lead. --Martintg (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks.  Sandstein  21:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps add a "background" section to clarify how this policy is different from the existing general sanctions? Though it may be obvious to some, the difference between General sanctions, Editing restrictions, Discretionary sanctions, blocks, bans (of which there are multiple kinds!) revert restrictions, etc. etc., is probably very confusing to most. It would probably help to really spell things out in the beginning, to clarify just what is being proposed here. --Elonka 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A new start. The above rejects discretionary sactions as an administrator thing.

It is clear in the discussion far above that people are not comfortable with

• policy authorizing unilateral administrator discretionary sanctions (aka topic bans), and
• administrators being given the responsibility to decide amongst themselves community consensus. I read this as saying that the appropriate forum is not WP:AN/I.

It is important that this “proposal” not “fail”, but that it reflects practice and consensus. Current practice is that such bans do occur (unsanctioned, failingly, whatever, but they do occur). This page should describe accepted practice, whatsoever that is, and define what is acceptable and what is not.

Accordingly, I have edited the page. Where I have done a bad job, please fix it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we're not likely to achieve consensus on discretionary sanctions imposed by a single administrator. I think the best way forward is to do what Biophys proposed above, that is to start a new page on community-imposed topic bans. Insofar these have been informally agreed on AN(I) as the need arose (most recent example). Changing this proposal for that purpose is too unwieldy. This page should be simply marked as a failed proposal. Pcap ping 05:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see that community-imposed topic bans are mentioned at WP:BAN. Also these community-imposed topic bans can be appealed to the ArbCom So, I'm not sure what else is to be discussed. Do people feel like we need a more detailed procedure for this? Pcap ping 06:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, that’s somewhat frustrating. Nathan reverts [1], saying

“(Undid revision 315044342 by SmokeyJoe (talk) I think we're still discussing Sandstein's proposal, and your changes introduce some errors and other strange things)”

, which is to nullify my contribution, without comment on what it good and what is bad, and is apparently in contradiction to his own position

“This proposed policy breaks the principle of what any admin can do, another can undo. It's an enormous expansion of the authority of an administrator, and while there are some administrators experienced and intelligent enough that I would trust them with this new right there are many more that I would not. Nathan T 13:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)”.

It is clear that the proposal as it stands does not represent consensus. Read the oppose/supports in the discussion above, especially noting the more recent trend. Why would we want to continue to discuss a proposal that hasn’t support, and not modify the proposal to reflect consensus?

Pcap’s comments are just as unproductive. He wants this page to {{fail}}, and argues against altering the page to reflect the consensus on its talk page. That is defeatism. It is not the wiki way. The way to make something better reflect consensus is to alter it to make it better reflect consensus. What in my edit took the page further from consensus?

If Pcap, Biophys, or any other want to start a completely different proposal, then do so by all means, but don’t soft-protect a bad version of this proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, stating the WP:OBVIOUS that this proposal is not going to pass at this point is not defeatism of any sort! It simply reflects WP:CONSENSUS or at least the lack thereof that is needed for this to become policy. It is the wiki way. Beating a WP:DEADHORSE is not... Massively altering this policy proposal, which is what you have done, is only going to result in an WP:EW. So, go write a new one if you have fresh ideas. Pcap ping 08:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The defeatism is saying that because this version won’t succeed, we should give up now (tag as failed). A massive difference between the proposal and the opinions on the talk page is justification for massive alteration. The obstacles here are actually few: basically too administrator centric. I disagree that “massive” is the appropriate adjective, but it does need “dramatic tuning”. The history of the page shows no sign of an edit war, on the contrary, it indicates stagnation. If Nathan is going to revert, he needs to defend his edit when challenged. Please do not tell me to go elsewhere. I disagree with forking proposals on every obstacle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Your nutshell change "Administrators may not impose sanctions (such as topic bans or revert restrictions) without first establishing that there is a community consensus to do so", can simply be added to WP:BAN. We don't need a separate policy to state just this... The rest of your changes, like "consensus discussion (where?" make me think you've not even read WP:BAN recently... Pcap ping 08:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to say you should go elsewhere, only that we haven't yet reached the point where discussion on Sandstein's proposal should end. Until that point, I don't think changes that take the proposal 180 degrees in the other direction should be let stand. Nathan ^T 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The discussion above is already clear enough. I think this is an example of m:Polls_are_evil, especially "Polling_encourages_false_dichotomy", and how the polls seems to have locked in an early version of a proposal. A poll with snow support is good, but if there is a trend to snow oppose, it is time to fix the proposal. Note again my point that this is not really a proposal taht can be failed, but an attempt to clarify existing practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a limit to dialectics on this wiki—edit warring and endless discussions. If the alternative to polls are merry-go-round discussions, I'd pick polls any day. After all, tough disputes end up before the ArbCom precisely because behavioral issues start to creep in such cases, and a true vote is needed to break the deadlock. ArbCom is representative democracy, despite what WP:DEMOCRACY might say. Often enough editors are topic banned even from talk pages by ArbCom for endlessly rehashing old disputes etc. So dialectics end right there. Pcap ping 03:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that you are responding to a train of thought different to the one I was on. We agree that the community won't supprt discretionary sanctions imposed by a single administrator. Can we fix the project page to reflect something the community will support? If we end up reinforcing the current state of WP:BAN, so be it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that "the community won't support discretionary sanctions imposed by a single administrator." Single administrators issue discretionary sanctions all the time. Take a look at the "Log of blocks and bans" sections on pages such as WP:ARBPIA and WP:DIGWUREN. I can also provide scores of examples of other places where single administrators have used discretionary sanctions. The concept is not new. --Elonka 17:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: The above discussion shows that the community won't approve this proposal if it broadly authorises discretionary sanctions imposed by a single administrator. If you could point me more of these discretionary sanctions, I'd appreciate it. To what extent are these discretionary sactions warning and advice, back up by threat of block? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To see where discretionary sanctions have been used:

• Go to Wikipedia:General sanctions
• Choose any case from that page, and click on the "log" link in the lefthand column

In most cases, the "one-admin" discretionary sanctions have been things like temporary revert restrictions, or temporarily banning an editor from a particular article. --Elonka 02:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another restart

I have made a number of amendments that preserve the general approach of the original proposal while taking the concerns above into account. Notably,

• any sanction is now clearly limited to the disruptive conduct described in the warning,
• the warning must be specific and contain useful advice on how to stop disrupting,
• the warning and the sanctioning admin must not be the same person, which introduces a level of automatic peer review for every sanction.
• As already mentioned above, positive consensus against the sanction is no longer always required to succeed in an appeal; rather, admins shall take action "according to community consensus" of the appeal discussion.

I'd be interested in what the people opposing above think.  Sandstein  08:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think what's still missing here, and the addition of which may make people more confortable in supporting this proposal, is some (non-exhaustive) description of the types of restrictions that are (intended to be) common practice, as well as some recommendation on their typical duration, and possibly guidelines on the escalation thereof. For comparison, Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration of blocks is pretty explicit in this regard. Pcap ping 09:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My chief problem with this propasal remains. Namely that a ban is a community decision that an editor is unwanted. That is not something that an individual administrator need, nor something he should have. Taemyr (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A site ban, yes (though admins can indef-block). But bans restricted to specific topics?  Sandstein  20:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Any ban is, pr. WP:BAN a community decision that an editor is unwanted. We should seperate this from an specific remedies. Taemyr (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, I have made several changes to the policy, including the addition of a Background section, linking to lists that show areas where discretionary sanctions have already been used successfully, clarifying the types of sanctions which this policy might authorize, and expanding the description of how an editor must receive a clear and unambiguous warning, before any sanctions can be placed. If anyone disagrees with any of my changes, I encourage you to continue editing the policy, to see if we can circle in on consensus that way. --Elonka 04:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are good additions/clarifications. I think we still need to say something about the usual/initial duration of a topic ban. A number of opposes in the "General" section above raised the issue that a short (site) block may be seen as a lesser deterrent than a long topic ban. Pcap ping 05:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I, too, think that these are good changes, though it might be required (to address the concerns above) to be strict about the warning and the sanctioning admin be different persons. With 1,000+ admins, someone will always be available.  Sandstein  05:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can point to multiple cases where I was issuing discretionary sanctions, and literally begging for another uninvolved admin to come in and offer a second opinion, but couldn't get anyone who wanted to take the time to come up to speed on a situation. I do agree that in an ideal situation, it's best to have multiple uninvolved admins who are in agreement with each other. But in actual practice, sometimes there's only going to be only one admin who knows enough about the situation to issue the necessary sanctions, so that admin should be allowed to proceed, rather than requiring that they get another admin's signoff.

As a way of moving forward, how about perhaps putting some limits on the types or duration of sanctions that can be instituted by a single admin, versus those that would require another admin's opinion? For example, allow a single admin to place revert restrictions and article bans of up to 30 days, but for full topic bans or anything longer than 30 days, it would be necessary to get a second admin into the mix? --Elonka 05:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We have had very contentious edition on politician articles in the runup to conventions and elections in the U.S., such as candidates with episodes of zaniness, with weird religious kookiness, or with flaky family members, or associates. There is no indication this will not be the the case in the future. An article ban 30 days before the election could be used to keep out those with a viewpoint not that of an admin who watches the article, and would be too long in those cases where articles might have real-world impact. The result might be either that articles are censored or that they become attack pieces, depending on the views of the admin seeking to shape the article, perhaps via "uninvolved" admin friends. Edison (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think few people would seriously dispute that discretionary sanctions can be effective in reducing the disruptive effect of real world disputes or other long-term problems. As I wrote above, though, in the past this "discretionary" authority has been controversial - and so its been limited for the most part to those areas recognized by ArbCom or a significant consensus (on a noticeboard), and the terms that can be imposed have been prescribed ahead of time. Sandstein's proposal recognizes the utility and efficiency of these sanctions, but doesn't address the widespread concern for the potential for abuse. I don't think this reworked version does much better, although its an improvement. Why not go a bit further? There must be a happy medium between requiring an arbitration case or overwhelming mandate from AN/I and giving relatively unfettered power to any single administrator. How about discretionary sanctions can be imposed by any corps of three administrators, or with the consent of an arbitrator? These sorts of things always work out better when responsibility/blame can be shared between administrators anyway. Nathan ^T 23:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not hard to round up three admins in cahoots with one another willing to abuse their power against opponents – as every cabal in the history of the project has shown. Requiring strong uninvolvement in the underlying content and each other would be a good idea.  Skomorokh  06:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The more complicated we make it to impose discretionary sanctions, the more often admins will just issue blocks, which are quick and easy, but are often overkill. This aside, ArbCom has asked us to develop a policy to clarify under what circumstances individual admins may issue sanctions; only once we agree that they should not (and mark this proposal failed) does it make sense to discuss sanctions imposed by collectives.  Sandstein  20:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see the problem. People go on complaining that the admin should be uninvolved, and yes, that should be true. But if an uninvolved admin oversees a situation with massive disruption by an editor/a group of editors, warns the editor(s) that they are disrupting too much, and the editors continue, then I don't see the problem with that admin, single handedly, without having a consensus behind him, saying, 'and now it is over, you all stop editing that page, period' (and I would not even mind if a (still uninvolved) editor said it!). At that point nothing technical happened, the editors can still edit, they can go to the talkpage of the admin, or to an admin board, and say 'I don't agree with the ban', they have all the possibilities. They can even continue! If then the same admin placing the 'ban' also blocks, hmm, then I could get worried, but until that point, no (worried, if the editors would go on without even trying to discuss the 'ban', then I would not even be worried if the 'banning' admin would block as well).

Having to have a consensus process before this a) can result in the disruption go on for .. hours, days, and b) is likely going to result in the problem that there will be many cases where consensus is not clear (if two sides of a dispute have enough people commenting 'no, we should not be banned', then there is obviously a) disruption, and b) no consensus.

Yes, I also agree that it would be better for such an admin to bring it to the community, but I still fail to see that it should be put into a rule that such an admin has to bring it to the community, and I also fail to see that we might create problems. Yes, there will be admins pushing an agenda, but that can be discussed, and that will be clearly shown if there is a follow-up discussion. Letting the admin find other admins who concur, yes, a) that is easy, we all have our friends and b) that again takes time and the disruption goes on.

Write it down as 'an admin can, as an alternative to blocking, 'ban' one or more editors from pages or topics. These editors can discuss that with the 'banning' admin, or on an admin noticeboard (or we could create Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions/Noticeboard). If there is found that a) the admin is not impartial, and should not have banned, then it will be up to the community to either uphold or remove the ban, b) the community does not agree with the ban, then the ban is lifted. It is just plainly silly, that we admins, when we run into a clear edit war dispute where we are uninvolved, that we have to block the editors and/or protect the pages involved, while it could be tried to let the parties cool down by saying that they are not allowed to edit the pages for some time. What is the difference if an involved admin bans an editor from a page, or that same involved admin is blocking the editor, in both cases the admin is wrong and should not do that. I can't get my head around the idea that this idea seems to fail because we are afraid that an involved admin is using a less strong action than blocking, where the 'banned' editors have more possibilities to discuss the involvedness (is that a correct word) of the banning admin than when they were blocked (they could end up not being noticed at all but by the admins who follow the unblock categories). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This change does very little to alleviate my concerns. A user has to be warned first now by someone else, but then an admin can still issue arbitrary sanctions at their lone discretion. This is still a single admin issuing a ban without necessarily having any evidence of community consensus. To answer Dirk: sure, I worry about involved admins but it's not the only issue. I'm more worried about admins that don't represent the community's center. There are admins out there who are very harsh on certain issues, and I don't think it's appropriate to say, as this proposal effectively does, that the entire community will back up any admin in any independent decision. I won't. I think such decisions need to be undertaken by some measure of the community's center. Bans and blocks are wildly different: when an admin says "you are blocked", unless they have made a simple error, they are never wrong. But when an admin says someone is banned, they might be wrong if they haven't discussed the matter. I want discretionary sanctions and bans to keep their sense of being actual rather than likely, just like blocks. That's why I would not support this proposal in any form if the decision to ban is fundamentally undertaken by a single admin. Mangojuice^talk 15:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is too much tied to Administrators.

This “another restart” is an improvement, a movement towards consensus, my in my view, at this rate, it will never reach the consensus that can be seen from the many opinions above. Most of the critical commentators have left, for now, and those still here are making the mistake of only talking to each other. Read the following quotes from above:

cases … begging for another uninvolved admin to come in and offer a second opinion, but couldn't get anyone who wanted to take the time to come up to speed Elonka 05:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose placing further burdens on our shrinking active admin corps S Marshall 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As per Elonka, the evidence that we have is that uninvolved administrators tend not to be forthcoming. This proposal is just increasing the expectation that admins will do more. See also WT:RFA for clear evidence that the resource of admin volunteer time and effort is actually waning.

The following quotes all reflect a position that the administrator corps do not, and should not be expected to, reflect community consensus. (Some comments more strongly reflect a proposal giving an individual uninvolved admin powers, but given Elonka’s statement, a difficult situation, and just a little WP:IAR, the imposition of a ban by a single admin would be authorised by the current version.)

Admins with some religious, political or nationalistic point of view, or some favored hobby, or some scientific or pseudoscientific viewpoint seeking to exclude
A topic ban should result only from a consensus on an open forum. Edison 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are not necessarily moderators, and we shouldn't be treating them like they are. That's why they're called sysops because of the additional technical tools given to them. MuZemike 02:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I do not want that power. Bearian 18:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators do not set policy - community consensus does. Administrators implement community consensus. Ray 21:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans are way too serious to not require community consensus. --Unionhawk 17:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes adminship too big of a deal. –Juliancolton 02:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

too strong of a power for sysops.--Blargh29 04:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Community decisions should be left to the community. — Ched 08:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins pushing their own agendas and subsequently causing disruption and the departure of leser editors
Admins have too much power already.
Giano 19:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe, based on reading others’ opinions above, that this proposal must be altered according to these points:

• The nutshell must reference “community consensus”
• “uninvolved administrators may impose discretionary sanctions” must require a pre-existing community consensus to do so
• This policy must explain how an ordinary editor (our largest resource) may initiate and contribute to a discussion on the imposition of a discretionary sanction, and then how ordinary editors may be involved in the upholding, modification, and repeal of discretionary sanctions.
• WP:AN/I is not the appropriate forum for such discussions.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAN explicitly says that WP:AN is the proper place to discuss community bans, including topic bans, and sets forth ways to appeal such bans to ArbCom. If this proposal is rejected in its current form (giving admins discretion to ban), there is no need to change it to say what administrators are not allowed to do, or to make it repeat what WP:BAN says with respect to community bans. The only change needed in case bans by a single/group of administrators are rejected is to mark this proposal as {{failed}}. Pcap ping 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BAN has an entire section that talks about the existing policy of administrator-issued bans. See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Administrator topic bans --Elonka 21:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That "entire" section is pretty brief. It is limited to arb-com defined topics. This proposal goes beyond the current text of WP:BAN. Also, I am not sure whether, and where, you agree or disagree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

An idea: explicitly delegated topic banning powers

A number of opposes raised concern that this proposal is making adminship too big of a deal, and that (most) current admins were not promoted with this job in mind. I share part of these concerns. In particular, the bar for adminship lately seems to be: applicant gave unclear answers to questions, but then (s)he didn't do anything stupid, so (s)he'll probably learn along the way, so why not? I do agree with the opposes that admins promoted on such standards are unsuitable to hand out topic bans even when these are allowed by ArbCom rulings under the current policies. As a compromise, I suggest: (1) a way for ArbCom to delegate these responsibilities for specific cases to a specific group of admins, (2) the community could do the same for certain topic areas. Designating admins by community consensus for given areas should remove suspicions that admins will self-elect to hand out topic bans in areas they are deeply involved with. (Full disclosure: I am also a supporter of the proposed WP:DEADMIN process.) Pcap ping 09:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I like these ideas. Not all admins would be good at this, but some would be. Do such discretionary sanctionors have to be admins? Note that discretionary bans is effectively an honor system, and that admin privileges are only needed when a ban is flaunted and blocking is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am in agreement that not all admins have the proper temperament to issue discretionary sanctions, so some filtering may be wise. However, instead of pre-approval of admins to do this, I'd say to go the other way. Meaning, just like we assume good faith and let anyone edit any article, we should allow any admin to issue discretionary sanctions. Then if the admin seems to be making bad calls, should the right be removed. As for what's a bad call, this could be defined as having multiple decisions overturned by consensus of other uninvolved admins. In actual practice though, I think we're going to find that 95% of admins won't have any desire whatsoever to get involved with discretionary sanctions. So rather than having too many admins issuing too many sanctions, I think it's going to be the opposite, where it's going to be difficult to find uninvolved admins who have the time and ability to even want to wade into complex disputes in the first place. --Elonka 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with 95% of admins won't have any desire. The big challenge with discretionary sanctions is that the user remains unblocked. As soon as we sanction a disruptive user, they will run around causing...disruption. Most admin don't have the temperament for receiving that level of personal abuse. Arbitration enforcement regulars are probably the only admins who will hand out this sort of sanction. While I think admins already have the power to hand out discretionary sanctions, having a documented policy would help regularize the process, and help prevent drama. Jehochman ^Talk 09:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Very true. I have extensive experience with what Jehochman describes. I also agree with Elonka that a pre-approval for admins is likely not to be necessary for the reasons she sets out.  Sandstein  20:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that if we give this power to any individual admin we set a dangerous precedent. Not all admin will appropriately use this, I foresee it being quite problematic at best. If any admin is free to topic ban someone because they disagree can scare away valuable contributers. The blocking process is more extreme but that's why we have consensus if the topic ban is really nec. the community will ultimately agree. Seems almost like dictatorial in concept. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• While a good idea in theory, this idea would involve a new layer of bureaucracy (a mechanism for delegating authority, a mechanism to remove it, etc. all similar in complexity to WP:RFA). I am, in general, an advocate of KISS and WP:BOLD: let admins do what needs to be done and let the community rein them in if they go too far, as reflected in the current proposal.  Sandstein  20:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'd be as bad as RfA is now. It'd be more like rollback - easy to get, easy to remove, easy enough to get again. There's some discussion at RfA about splitting the admins tools up, so people could just apply for a few buttons. (Again, like rollback.) This would help with backlogs, it'd help with RfA (which is pretty broken atm). NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

KISS works well in most endeavours. It has worked will in building up this encyclopedia, and in keeping community humming along. However, speaking from some real world experience, KISS doesn’t work for dispute resolution.

This proposal fits nicely into the existing dispute resolution options. It’s for cases more serious than newcomers with the wrong idea, or Wikiquette alerts‎, and where there hasn’t arisen a dispute that can be subjected to mediation or arbitration. A disputed discretionary sanction may progress to mediation or arbitration. This proposal is needed because the wikipedia dispute resolution methods aren’t working. Borderline constructive editors, whether they a aggressive, tendentious, kooky, or whatever, need to be confronted by a policy with teeth.

A policy with teeth that is supposed to deal with troublesome workmates, workmates who likely have a counter-grievance complaint, needs to be defined, sequential, and precise in what each party should do next. It needs to place burdens of work not on the supervisor, mediator, or reviewer, but on the trouble maker (whether innocent or guilty). This is why I think it should be made easy for someone to initiate a discretionary sanction, and then for there to be a well defined (not KISS) procedure of appeal. I think that to worry more about who may make what sort of sanction, and less about what happens when the sanctioned appeals, is mistake.

So, where Sandstein says "let admins do what needs to be done and let the community rein them in if they go too far" I think "let admins do what needs to be done and let troublemaker make a case to the community if he disagrees". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this idea... or put another way, I think I like it but we already have it, because that's basically what Arbcom is. The only real difference is that ArbCom has to make a collaborative effort to issue these sanctions. If we don't even trust our Arbitrators, who are very thoroughly vetted by the community, to act on their own, why would we delegate that power to individual admins? Mangojuice^talk 15:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

editor ignores ban?

$ADMIN applies a narrow carefully defined topic ban to $EDITOR. $EDITOR ignores the ban, making 10 good quality constructive edits. What happens? Does $EDITOR get a block, and who from? Will wheel-warring be preventable in this case? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If the editor makes 10 good, non-controversial edits, I personally would apply WP:IAR and ignore the infraction. A topic ban is only justifiable when the vast majority of an editor's contributions to a page are problematic. When banned editors return with new accounts and don't cause trouble, we routinely ignore them. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What happens depends whether there is an administrator willing to issue a block. I (being a stickler for process) probably would, after issuing a warning first to make sure the ban is not misunderstood and informing about the possibility of an appeal, but many others would probably take Jehochman's position, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Wheelwarring is unfortunately never preventable.  Sandstein  20:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Or put another way, this proposal would inherently lead to wheel-warring because some admins will ignore these bans or treat them as warnings against breaking policies, while others will block under them. Isn't that a sign that these bans would be controversial and should be discussed? Mangojuice^talk 15:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Trial run?

We've had, in the past, good experience with trying new stuff out on a small scale before implementing it community-wide. As soon as we've agreed on the general outlines of the approach, and even while we don't have consensus about this being a permanent policy in general, we should consider asking the community (on AN and VP) for permission to implement this proposal for, say, a month. After that time, we can evaluate the results (perhaps asking a group of experienced non-admins to do so) and find out whether the concerns and expectations voiced above have any merit.  Sandstein  21:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Durova³²⁰ 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Durova's carefully and exhaustively argued response, my simple reply is that this is not (and I would argue never was, since I consider unilateral topic bans were previously practice) a common enough occurrence for an arbitary short time period trial. A month may not bring forward any such incident, and it would be unfair - yeah, I know, but... - for one "miscreant" to be treated in such a manner as an experiment (and it would not do for admins go searching for likely candidates simply to run a trial). Trials are good for technical matters, but not when it comes to dealing with editors/vandals - these are people at the other end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If admins just start doing this and other admins tend to respect them, then my large concerns with this proposal would be gone. But I think it would be disruptive, because until things are clear, we'll have admins telling people that they are banned from doing X when it might not be true. This would lead to confusion and drama. I don't see why we can't sort out whether this sort of thing would generally be supported via discussion... or rather, I think we already have. Mangojuice^talk 15:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What about limiting discretionary sanctions to a class of users, during a trial at least. For example, discretionary sanctions may be applied to anyone who has been indef blocked (except where in acknowledged error), or anyone who has been cumulatively blocked for more than a month. Rd232 ^talk 15:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Naive question

What is the difference between saying "if you continue editing disruptively at article X, I shall block you to prevent further disruption" and "I prohibit you from continuing to edit at article X for a short time. " DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I agree the "ban v. block" terminology is confusing. To use your example, an admin saying "I prohibit you from continuing to edit at article X for a short time" is called an "article ban". It means that an administrator has told an editor to avoid the article, but there are no technical restrictions in place, and the editor is also still allowed to edit anywhere else on Wikipedia that they want. A block, on the other hand, is a technical solution. When an administrator blocks an editor, that editor is then prevented by the software from editing anything on Wikipedia except for their own talkpage. The block is also recorded in that editor's block log, which stays with them permanently. For more information, see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks. --Elonka 15:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, you misunderstand: a threat of a block is what seems equivalent to an article ban. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The question illustrates that this policy, if adopted, would to a large extent only formalize what admins can do today already (i.e., threat to block). Indeed, many WP:UW warning templates can be construed as "stop or I shall block" types of "ban". But practically speaking, phrasing such a warning in the terms of a formal sanction and logging it will allow other editors to transparently evaluate compliance, and other admins to take enforcement action. In other words, admin action will hopefully become a bit more predictable and less arbitrary.  Sandstein  15:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The effect of banning an editor from a page by threatening a block should they persist with disruptive editing only holds true for those who are aware they are being disruptive, those who are pursuing The Truth or an agenda will edit past the warning - but these are the individuals who are unlikely to accede to a topic ban anyway, for the same reasons, and will ultimately be blocked or ArbCom sanctioned. However, as Sandstein says, it may be more useful to have a registry of topic or page bans (indexable?) than to have to review individuals talkpage histories for evidence of prior warnings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

DGG, neither of the statements you give amount to a ban. A ban is the statement "the community has decided that your edits (to this article) is unwanted." Taemyr (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

DGG, excellent question. Basically, "if you disrupt this article again, you'll be blocked" or "if you continue edit warring you'll be blocked" is effectively the kind of warning that tends to be respected by admins: that is, a block issued after such a warning will tend to be upheld. In other words, those are actually bans. But a claim like "if you edit this article again, you'll be blocked" is a claim that the editor is banned, but one I don't think other admins would generally support on its own. It's one thing to tell people to stop breaking policies, it's another to step beyond that and claim that the community feels their contributions are unwelcome. Mangojuice^talk 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Most people someone would like to ban from further edits to an article likely feel that they are merely making the article balanced by addition of a referenced fact that shows the other side of the issue. Edison (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference is quite clear and substantial to me; the first specifies a disruptive behavior while the second captures a mix of beneficial and destructive behavior. The editor is permitted to make non-disruptive edits under #1 and not under #2, while disruptive edits meet the same response under each. That to me is why #1 (warning) is better than #2 (topic/article ban). Christopher Parham (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion on article scope

I was reviewing the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement from several months ago, and it reminded me of a suggestion that I posted towards the end of the RfC, which was based on discussions from the Working group on cultural and ethnic edit wars. For the purposes of this Discretionary Sanctions policy proposal, how about specifying which articles might be eligible for such sanctions? For example:

1. Articles where the consensus of editors on the talkpage, is that the presence of an uninvolved administrator would help with the dispute.
2. Articles that have been protected due to edit wars, at least 3 times within one year, or more than 30 days in one year. There are often articles that have devolved into a state of indefinite protection due to edit-warring, which articles might benefit from uninvolved admins being empowered to place discretionary sanctions (for example, Gilad Atzmon).
3. Articles where the majority of editors have agreed to mediation, but one or more heavily involved editors have refused mediation. These articles in particular might benefit from administrator intervention, as a halfway step to try and address things before proceeding as far as a full multi-month arbitration case.

Thoughts? --Elonka 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think any time there is significant approval from the outside admin community that discretionary sanctions are appropriate for an article, then it becomes legitimate, much as an ArbCom ruling can legitimize such special enforcement situations. A single admin is not sufficient, neither are specific litmus tests like your condition #2 or #3. Maybe that might be a good rough estimate for when there will be community support, or maybe not. In fact, I think we already do this; see Wikipedia:General sanctions, specifically the Barack Obama and Sarah Palin cases, where article probation was imposed by the community. Mangojuice^talk 15:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ability to page block?

Having read (some of) the above discussion, it seems to me that in cases where an editor is generally productive but is disruptive on an article or talk page an alternative to a Wiki-wide block would be a page block. An admin would have the ability to prevent individual editors (including an individual IP) from editing an article or it's talk page, or both. Page block to be notified to editor by admin imposing it. Durations to be variable in the normal way. A page block could give an editor the chance to step away from an article for a period and cool down instead of escalating the problem and being blocked Wiki-wide. Of course, further disruptive editing elsewhere should result in a general block. We have the sledgehammer, how about a toffee hammer too? Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk to the developers. It's not possible to block a user from a page, but I think it would be beneficial to do so. Currently the only specific page we're able to block users from editing is their own talk page, if they are already blocked. Now, trying to simulate the same thing via "discretionary sanctions" is another matter entirely, as the above discussion shows. Mangojuice^talk 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Report back to ArbCom on result of "Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure"

Following Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, ArbCom urged the community to "engage in a policy discussion and clarify, on an appropriate policy page, whether and under what circumstances an administrator may direct that a given editor is banned from editing a particular page or on a particular topic (outside the context of arbitration enforcement), without first attaining a consensus for the ban on a noticeboard, and if so, how such bans are to be reviewed. Such discussion should seek to attain consensus on a policy in this area within one month from the close of this case."

User:Sandstein created the proposed policy page Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions on 14 September, and then initiated the discussion on this talkpage.

A month has now passed.

The proposed policy, Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions, was discussed but has not received community consensus as it is felt that a system whereby an Admin imposes a ban without consulting the community is open to abuse, and that deciding singly on a topic ban puts too much responsibility on one person. That it is not technically feasible to impose a topic ban was also discussed, with the comment that in order to enforce the ban the sanction of blocking would need to be used. The point was raised that there is a difference between warning someone they would be blocked if they continued certain specific disruptive behaviour, and banning someone from editing an article (even with positive contributions) with an unspoken implication that they may be blocked if they continue. There is a feeling that current procedures work well enough, and that topic bans are best dealt with via discussion, either at ArbCom or under the conditions laid out at Wikipedia:BAN#Community_ban.

A report may now be given to ArbCom that the community have engaged in a policy discussion and clarified that an administrator may not alone impose a topic ban. The community prefers that topic bans are discussed either at ArbCom or at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as per Wikipedia:BAN#Community_ban. SilkTork *^YES! 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions (2014) (June 2017)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by NeilN at 05:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions#2014

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by NeilN

WP:ACDS has instructions for admins placing editing restrictions. To wit, "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)." It has no instructions for admins wishing to modify restrictions placed by other admins. Being the cockeyed optimist that I am, I have to believe that not all restrictions will be needed in the future, especially ones custom tailored to address a current controversy. I'd like Arbcom to clarify the process of getting restrictions removed. I suggest copying the process laid out for modifying sanctions. Briefly, fresh disruption can be met with new restrictions placed by any admin. Restrictions may be lifted only with the agreement of the admin who placed the restrictions. If they are unavailable or disagreement occurs then a request for review may be made at WP:AN or WP:ARCA. Ideally I'd like the lifting-restrictions admin to be allowed to use their judgement if the original admin is unavailable but I realize this could create drama.

• Clarification for Maile66: This request has been coming for a couple weeks and was actually opened before the Jordan protection discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

Most page restrictions are applied as discretionary sanctions. In my view they should be appealable at WP:Arbitration enforcement like any other sanction. Making such appeals go to WP:ARCA risks using up the time of the committee unnecessarily. Someone who wants an existing restriction lifted might start with {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} or a reasonable equivalent. Appeals should be granted or denied using the same venue and consensus rules as for personal sanctions, as laid out at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. The page at WP:AC/DS does not yet have any wording for how to appeal a page restriction. (These restrictions are sometimes referred to in the WP:DSLOG as 'Page-level sanctions'; you can search the log for that term). It looks like there could be a new item for page-level sanctions added below 'Appeals by sanctioned editors.' If the committee agrees to such a change, it would probably need a motion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Maile66

Apparently, my applying ECP to Jordan in response to an ECP protection request, which I applied in accordance with instructions I had previously requested on how ECP should be applied, has triggered this discussion. Within a matter of hours, that was questioned on my talk page, and that discussion is currently ongoing at RFPP. I have always been hesitant to apply ECP, because it always seemed too vague to me how it is applied. One of the hottest issues in the world that will outlive all of us, and it has been left to admin discretion on whether or not to apply protection, with no clear guidelines on what "broadly interpreted" means in regards to whether or not the article is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That conflict, and who and what is related to it, really is subjective and dependent upon where one lives and whether or not one has a personal religion in the mix.

As for the applying admin to also change or lift what they applied, I'm uneasy about that regardless of the subject matter. In this particular case, I think it really sets a bad precedence for the applying admin to do a reversal within hours, and opens the flood gates to "hey, you did it for the last person...". There's always a chance an admin will be approached to lift a restriction they applied, and that often depends on how strongly and diligently another editor is in addressing the admin to lift the sanctions. For the sake of being impartial, especially on the ECP issue, I believe any sanctions lifted should come from an uninvolved admin.

Arb needs to give us some clearer guidelines, please. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I see the above post by NeilN clarifies that my edit on Jordan did not trigger this discussion. However, I think the Jordan protection is a good example of why we need clarification. The protection request that first made me ask for guidance on this issue was Celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Liberation of Jerusalem, which had just been created 3 days before the RFPP, and there had been no disruptive edits on it. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN and DrFleischman: With all due respect with however this is seen by the Arbitrators, I have a side request. After this is complete, can we please have a reference (preferred bullet-point list) of (1) Whether or not another admin can lift the applying admin's block protection; (2) The clear path of resolution from Point A to Point B; (3) Details on what "broadly interpreted" means exactly at WP:RFPP. Or as "exactly" as it can be. In all respect to editors who may request block protection, or lifting of block protection, it would be helpful to have a quick reference guide to work from. — Maile (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis I was invited to participate in this discussion, because of Jordan. I fulfilled a request to indef ECP on the article. Within hours, another editor objected on my talk page, their reasoning being that Jordan is not connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict (hence, my question about "broad"). I feel between a rock and a hard place. I've been led to believe that the admin who applies the ECP must be the one to change it. I would feel a lot more comfortable if there were a consensus at RFPP and another admin lifted that protection. Otherwise, ECP protection creates potential yo-yo situations where "indef" is really only a temporary thing until an objecting editor can convince the appying admin to revert their self. And that scenario opens the door to others circumventing the RFPP page to an admin's talk page to have them revert their self at will. My personal goal is that once we get through this with Jordan, I am never ... but never ... ever ... dealing with ECP again. I do not want to set a precedence as a weak, ineffective admiin. — Maile (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by DrFleischman

I was the editor who first raised this issue with NeilN and I can assure Maile66 that it had nothing to do with Jordan. I appreciate Neil raising the issue here and I support his proposed solution, as well as Ed's. The problem, in a nutshell, is that it appears that literally the only way to have a DS page restriction removed (outside of ArbCom) is to convince the imposing admin--and if the imposing admin disagrees with you, or has retired, then tough luck, the page will likely remain under DS restrictions forever. I'd like to point out that there are actually two distinct but closely related things wrong with this. The first is that sometimes admins make mistakes, or more broadly speaking, a consensus of admins might not support a particular DS page restriction. The second is that sometimes a DS page restriction might be perfectly appropriate at the time it's imposed, but as Neil notes, perhaps it has outlived its usefulness. I hope that whatever comes out of this request addresses both of these scenarios. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Opabinia regalis, I've had multiple admins and experienced editors tell me WP:ACDS does not provide any avenue for modifying or removing page restrictions because #Appeals and modifications only only applies to editor sanctions. So if we're going to do nothing there then at a minimum I'd request that a shortcut be made to this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

...Here's an example. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Roger Davies

Removing restrictions is already (comprehensively) covered by the "Modifications by administrators" section at WP:AC/DS.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Makeandtoss

In closely related articles to Arab-Israeli conflict, it is obvious that ARBPIA should apply. In farther cases, it should be carefully considered. Especially if its a high level article like for example Jordan, which is an establishment older than the conflict. --Makeandtoss (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Discretionary sanctions (2014): Clerk notes

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

Discretionary sanctions (2014): Arbitrator views and discussion

• To be honest, I'd just assumed that people would do this via AE if for whatever reason the original admin declined or was unavailable, so codifying that as Neil and Ed suggest seems reasonable. (I also appreciate Ed's diplomacy in saying that doing this through ARCA "risks using up the committee's time", which is a very nice way of saying "you guys are way too slow" ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • On Roger's point, I gather that the argument is some combination of "it's not obvious that 'modifying' can include 'removing entirely'" and "those procedures are most naturally read as applying to editor-based sanctions, not page restrictions, protections, etc". Maile66, I think you're asking a different question; it seems to be about how broad "broad" is in deciding whether to apply a restriction in the first place, rather than about the procedures for changing or removing restrictions. Also, did you mean "Whether or not another admin can lift the applying admin's block" (not protection)? Because the block thing has been litigated to death and beyond in the AE cases and if we're going to start on that again I'm going to have to plan a stop at the liquor store tonight ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well shit, if changing your mind makes you a weak and ineffective admin, then I must be completely spineless. But conveniently, I'm an invertebrate ;) But I still think this issue about "how broad is broad" is separate from the current issue of "do we need to change the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators to be clear that it applies to decisions other than editor sanctions". Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Mkdw: I think the second issue is the more significant one, if I understand correctly: we're more worried about the fact that the "appeals" section is written as if it only applies to editor sanctions. I think this would remove any ambiguity:
      • In Appeals by sanctioned editors: Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages...
      • In Modifications by administrators: No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without...
    • Now I'm not entirely sure a better answer isn't "yes, use those procedures for page restrictions and for removals" and leave the existing text alone, but if there's a desire to be more explicit, I don't think it really requires significant changes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Also going to ping Roger Davies in case he has input on these edits. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• I also think this would go to WP:AE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd support those changes for clarity, Opabinia regalis. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
• I support using WP:AE for these types of situations. Mkdw ^talk 19:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• EdJohnston and Roger Davies bring forward a good point that there are already instructions at sanctions.modify. Criteria #2 already grants access to AE, AN, ARCA if the enforcing administrator cannot or does not provide affirmative consent. I would take "modifications" to include removal but perhaps the wording could be made more clear. I don't think an entirely new section is warranted just for removals. Mkdw ^talk 07:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Opabinia regalis: Those changes seem very reasonable to me. It's clear and concise. I like it! Mkdw ^talk 19:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say either by agreement with the Admin placing the restriction or AE. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Motion: Discretionary sanctions update

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

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

In the interest of clarity, the discretionary sanctions procedures described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are modified as follows:

• In the section Appeals by sanctioned editors: Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages...
• In the section Modifications by administrators: No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without...

Enacted - Miniapolis 13:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
3. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
4. kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Mkdw ^talk 18:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
6. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
9. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
10. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.