Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions

RfC on the enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions
Formal editing restrictions, voluntarily accepted by an editor, have been logged on WP:Editing restrictions under the heading of Voluntary. The three extant restrictions are:
 * 1) A voluntary interaction ban between two editors which is logged as "Indefinite".
 * 2) A topic ban with a specific expiration date.
 * 3) A topic ban which is noted as both being enforceable by blocks and saying appeals are to be heard at WP:AN.

Debate has arisen over whether voluntary restrictions such as these are enforceable in the same way a community based ban can be. The question of this RfC is:

"''Are editing restrictions which are accepted voluntarily and logged at WP:Editing restrictions to be treated in the same way as the community placed restrictions logged on the same page? This question deals with §4.3 WP:Editing restrictions and not §5 WP:Editing restrictions." Jbh Talk  06:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Support (Yes)

 * 1) Having editing restrictions which editors can voluntarily subscribe to which can be enforced in the same way CBANs can be (warnings, blocks, etc) allows editors to make promises to the community which they are accountable for. It can cut down on the drama and trauma of forcing an editor through an AN/ANI thread simply to place a restriction they are already inclined to agree to.  The current restrictions listed on #Voluntary exist with the expectation they will be enforced. One explicitly notes how it may be enforced. Based on this, and that they are listed in the same section as ArbCom and community placed bans, I believe the intent of the page is to log enforceable, voluntary editing restrictions/bans/promises or whatever one wants to call them. To say otherwise is to go against the plain intention of what already exists.  Jbh  Talk  06:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) * A note the term "voluntary" refers to how the editing restriction is placed . As in I voluntarily accept a restriction not to refer to my fellow editors as Blue Ducks. Violation of this restriction may be enforced by blocks of up to 1 month. This differs from the community, at the close of a thread saying "You must not refer to you fellow editors as Blue Ducks. If you do you can be blocked for a month". See WP:Editing restrictions for actual examples of what is being done currently. The purpose of this RfC is to see if there is support for current practice continued logging of restrictions as voluntary' or to establish consensus to stop what is currently being done so there are not more editors with quasi-restrictions.  Jbh  Talk  07:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) **Except as I have pointed out at both AN and WT:BAN: this is not the current practice. We don't do this! The three you listed are outliers and I only think one of them is enforceable as a community sanction. Four times in 17 years does not make a current practice or anything at all established. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) *** Changed wording. I agree that it is seldome done and there is no obvious consensus for what is now being done. The fact remains it is being done and would continue to be done without a consensus to stop. I also agree that a no consensus here would not insulate the process. In that case I would support an MfD of the /Voluntary sub-page. Jbh  Talk  15:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) This is an excellent way to minimise unnecessary drama in those few cases where editors find themselves able to decide on appropriate restrictions to their own editing. — This, that and the other (talk)  09:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Just as with the sudden "Retired" banners that editors use to avoid scrutiny (which feel to me just like criminals lying low until the heat around their crime cools), voluntary restrictions are useless unless we hold people's feet to the fire. Because this offer by disruptive editors is used so frequently to avoid having community restrictions imposed on them (i.e., it often prematurely ends discussion of appropriate community sanctions like), we should treat the outcome of a voluntary restriction in the same manner as a community-enforced one. Right now, it just acts as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Grandpallama (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) I agree with everything Jbh and Grandpallama say above. There's no point to restrictions if they can't be enforced. James (talk/contribs) 14:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) It's enforceable as a ban until the user voluntarily rescinds the ban. So it's not like some of the oppose votes say that it's not really voluntary if it's enforceable. Theoretically, all a user has to do is rescind the ban and nothing is enforceable. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - I would interpret these as "voluntarily entered into" rather than "voluntarily followed". The first situation would be fully enforceable and would only end at the predetermined time or by specific request that is reviewed and approved by the community. The second would be unenforceable as it would be capricious. The subject could say "nyah nyah, only fooling. I rescind the agreement" at any time. The first is a parallel to volunteering for military service, you are held accountable until the end of the specified enlistment. The second is parallel to voluntarily picking up trash off the street as you go along your normal business, you can stop doing it at any time. --Khajidha (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Are they enforceable as of right now? I would say no, but we can make them enforceable via this process, and if someone is self-aware enough to go ahead and admit they need the restriction that actually a point in their favor and we should not subject them to further process for process’ sake. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) Support If voluntary bans are enforced with actual bans, the same should apply. --Tarage (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) Support The opposition position would imply that any banned user could make their ban unenforceable simply by agreeing to it quickly. That's just stupid.  If someone agrees to abide by a ban the ban still exists.  If it isn't going to be enforced, it's just the user in question agreeing to stop being an asshole, which is fine and really the best possible outcome, but is not a ban.  If a user agrees to be placed under a ban, in those words, then the ban is as good as any other ban.  -- Jayron 32 01:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we just log it properly as a ban with community consensus rather than the never used method that we’re somehow pretending is a normal thing. This has literally never caused an issue before, and I suspect this RfC is more about Jbh’s admin recall ideas than anything else (not an assumption of bad faith, he’s free to propose this for any reason). TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still not getting it. If people don't actually believe that volunteering to accept a ban is a problem, then why are people opposing this below?  Why should we somehow treat people who volunteer to accept a ban different?  --- Jayron 32 02:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because this never actually happens and informal agreements shouldn’t become some highly bureaucratic practice. Someone saying “Okay, I won’t do that.” Who then comes back to editing an area 10 months later and causes no problems shouldn’t have to appeal it or be blocked. My point is that this is solving a problem that doesn’t exist: we block people who are being disruptive regardless of these, and if they aren’t being disruptive we don’t enforce them and shouldn’t. I’d actually like to see an example from the three currently logged sanctions where this policy change would have helped anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No one has ever agreed to abide by a ban? I find that hard to believe!  You're really not making sense here!  No one is talking about informal agreements here.  I'm saying that if a person voluntarily agrees to abide by a set of ban conditions, we should enforce those, and that we shouldn't let them off the hook if they then violate the terms they agreed to.  I don't know why that is controversial.  -- Jayron 32 03:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Tony is in a way correct. I saw that we had what seemed to me to be an established mechanism for editors making binding promises to the community through the mechanism of logging a voluntary ban – the page had been there for more than a year; it was used, not much but used; and I saw the community accept its use when Rusf10 accepted a voluntary ban. I figured that since, by all that is wiki, this seemed to be accepted it would be a great way to address the perennial recall issue. People said 'promises mean nothing because they are not enforceable' … so here seemed to be a pre-existing, accepted, mechanism of enforcing a promise without it being forced by the community. I wrote up a draft about how this mechanism might be applied to the promise of recall, giving it the teeth so many complained it was missing.  I was rather shocked to find that the admins I discussed this with, whom I respect and significantly more often than not agree with, said that such bans were not enforceable regardless of what the recorded ban stated – hence this RfC. I would prefer that the result be in the affirmative but I am more concerned that the disconnect between expectation, policy and practice be resolved. Tony has made some cogent arguments why this might not be a good idea, as have others, though I firmly disagree with the logic behind 'if it is voluntary then it can not be enforced' as I and others have explained elsewhere. Regardless, the RfC process should work out how the community feels about the policy implied by the existence #Voluntary.  I think, whether or not it can be used in my recall idea, that having a mechanism of enforceable promises will ultimately help the project. I do fear the possibility that the option to make promises enforceable could lead to a tendency to make them all so. I hope the community will be able to find a proper balance should this new tool be ratified but I do see, now more than when opening this, the potential for growing pains as that balance is found.  Jbh  Talk  03:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - the project needs a mechanism to voluntarily enter into a binding agreement. The specifics of each should be addressed in each log entry - specifically whether the user can step out of it at any time, after a certain time, or only with community consensus.  Tazerdadog (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Support 1 is not really voluntary: when two users agree to a mutual, enforceable restriction, not enforcing it when one party breaks it is asking for trouble. 2 appears to have been accepted as solution providing another solution the restrictee was pushing for is adopted: making the "voluntary" restriction unenforceable might retroactively change the way those who supported the condition's imposition would have !voted, and so is a procedural nightmare unless it's taken as invalidating the condition as well. 3 was accepted in place of a community restriction that had been proposed, and, lacking consensus that the original community restriction is not necessary, we need to enforce it as we would any other restriction. These aren't like the time I spontaneously decided not to edit ANI until such time as a full archive page had been filled up just because one or more editors were logging out of their accounts in order to troll me over my high rate of activity there and I didn't need that; it is more like the time I accepted a mutual IBAN with this guy and was blocked for it (read: the community has always considered these kind of "voluntary" restrictions enforceable; if that is a problem with some editors for semantic reasons, then we should just stop using the word "voluntary"). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Support "Voluntary" is how the agreement is entered into, as opposed to an imposed restriction. "Enforceable" only means that the agreement isn't mere words used to buy time. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I'm not really sure about logging and the other formalities, and the arguments below do raise concerns about becoming encombered by process. However, Hijiri88's arguments above are more convincing. I'm sure we can figure out a way to enforce these restrictions without an excess of process, but I do think that they must be enforcable to have the weight they clearly do in administrative discussions. Tamwin (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support if we keep the notion of voluntary restrictions at all, or voluntary restrictions are meaningless and amount to a broken promise to the community. I remain neutral on whether they should be enforced in exactly the same manner as imposed restrictions. I'm open to the idea that it might just be a cause for immediate review (at ANI, or AN, or AE, or ARCA, or whatever seems most applicable for the case in point) to see about an imposed sanction. About TonyBallioni's comment below that "[voluntary sanctions] exist to help people save face and not be embarrassed" – I'm not sure I entirely agree with that formulation. Rather, they exist to avoid blocks and topic bans in particular, which carry a significant onus and are frequently used as weapons against the editor later.  That doesn't mean VS are utterly meaningless. I'm alert to expansions of admin power, but I don't think this really is one. If you narrowly escaped an imposed ban or block by agreeing to avoid the problematic behavior and then renege on that and do it again anyway, the community would impose an involuntary sanction and an admin would implement it. So, either expedite the process by immediately having that hearing, or expedite it even more by permitting the block/ban to proceed without re-hearing the matter. Neither of these amount to "I'm an admin and I don't like you, so screw you with this block and topic ban out of nowhere. Ha ha ha, feel my omnipotent admin wrath."  As for "Literally anything you say on any talk page could somehow be construed as a voluntary restriction", why would that be the case? It's not the case now. This is obviously about voluntarily restrictions formally agreed to and annotated in a noticeboard close or other process. If that's not obvious, then make it so by wording the proposed policy material properly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC); revised: 03:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)  PS: Or just scrap it: I don't oppose the idea of doing away with voluntary restrictions entirely. If we really have had only four cases of them, the idea seems to be something the community doesn't really support. I think these numbers are off however, since they're only accounting for voluntary sanctions recorded in one place, and not negotiated closes at ANI and elsewhere (I've done one of those myself).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - A voluntary ban is a de facto contract between the editors involved and the community, and, just as in contract law, if the party's do not adhere to the terms of the contract, penalties can be levied. Voluntary bans are entered into to settle disputes which, were it not for the voluntary ban, would have most probably have been settled by involuntary bans imposed by admins or the community.  If these voluntary bans are not enforceable, then their coercive effect, necessary to insure that the editors involved adhere to their sanctions, is nil, and they become simply a means to short-circuit the dispute resolution process.  If voluntary bans are not enforceable, then we should no longer accept them, and allow all disputes to continue to their conclusion, or else only accept voluntary bans which specifically call for enforcement by block.  The better option to insure the smooth operation of the project, is to consider all voluntary bans to be enforceable by blocks, whether the ban explicitly says so or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Support with caveats. Voluntary restrictions are typically entered into where a community restriction is likely - sort of like a plea deal or settlement in a legal case. The bar to lifting them should definitely be lower, but it should equally definitely exist. Guy (Help!) 06:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - absolutely. The only difference is that the editor voluntarily took on the responsibility and spared everyone the drama. I think it's a commendable action but enforcement should apply as it would if it had been a community or admin action. Atsme 📞📧 04:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) Support it's always been my understanding that voluntary restrictions which are hardly uncommon at AN//I, especially when discussion appears to be heading towards a non voluntary restriction are enforceable. I'm fairly sure there have been cases when these have explicitly been mentioned as part of the discussion. It's fairly weird to find here this doesn't seem to have consensus. AN//I is going to be an unfortunately worse place unless we achieve consensus since it means at a minimum, any future voluntary restrictions are likely to be taken all the way through the formal cban process rather than simply being accepted. One thing which is true is that we have never really bothered with how voluntary restrictions are lifted. I'm not opposed to making it a very lightweight process. But the point is that as long as the voluntary restrictions exists, it should be treated as community restrictions which is how things have generally been presented at AN//I whenever the come up. BTW for the avoidance of doubt since people may say various things and we should avoid wasting time on unnecessary wikilawyering, I'm fine with this sort of voluntary restriction only coming about when as part of that agreement, the editor agrees it will be logged and enforced like a formal community restriction so there is no possible confusion. I admit I wasn't aware that the many, many voluntary restrictions agreed at ANI have been poorly logged although I tend to feel the more important thing is the formal notification on the editors talk not that it matters so much with a voluntary agreement anyway since the editor should obviously be aware of it. As I said below, I'm not thinking of cases when an editor simply says they will avoid something but the far more formalised case where it's clearly presented as a restriction and often uses formal restriction language like iban or topic ban. If people are hang up about the wording, I'm fine with it being renamed. Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) Support A "voluntary" logged ban should be viewed as a binding restriction that an editor has agreed to enter into. Although it may be viewed as self-imposed, it is also a sanction that has been accepted by the community as closure to the case.This means that a logged IBan would be technically enforceable, however I see no reason why an outside editor would enforce such a ban if both editors agree to start interacting civilly with each other. There should also be no issue with promptly lifting an IBan at the request of both editors.Of course all of this would only apply to formal, logged restrictions. An informal talk-page agreement would remain non-binding as always. Failure to follow an informal agreement would not be sanctionable in and of itself, but could lead to sanctions based on underlying disruptive behavior. –dlthewave ☎ 16:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I have seen "I voluntarily undertake not to do X" used as a way of avoiding a restriction which was otherwise going to be being imposed, and then ignored. If an editor is not willing to stick to a restriction then he or she should not "agree" to do so. If he or she voluntarily agrees to a restriction and agrees that it will be enforceable (which is what is under discussion) then he or she should then accept that it is enforceable. It is also often likely to be much less hard on an editor to let him or her agree to an enforceable restriction than dragging him or her through the process of an adversarial discussion ending in a decision to force such a restriction on the editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, It is a recorded agreement between the user and the community and breaking it without negotiations is a breach of contract (ie - bad faith behaviour, possibly premeditated, in that the voluntary restriction may have been offered with no intention of sticking to it to avoid involuntary sanctions). A voluntary restriction is a personal amendment of the terms of use. Either we do not accept recorded voluntary restrictions at all, or we formally record then and treat them as enforceable. A 24 hour cooling off/reconsideration period could be allowed, and consideration can be given to conditions of duress, which make the agreement non-voluntary. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - With the clarification that has been offered to me in the oppose section, I definitely come down as a hard support. If a user voluntarily agrees to an editing restriction that includes a provision for enforcement, of course it should be enforced. I can't believe that's even a question. Contrary to the sentiments in the oppose section, a "voluntary enforceable restriction" can exist, and trifling over the meaning of the word "voluntary" does not change that simple concept. The only difference is the method of implementation. Arbcom or Community-imposed restrictions are implemented involuntarily. Why would we try to decide that a user can not voluntarily agree to such a restriction? Obviously it's not going to happen most of the time, but why would we adopt a position that it can't happen? We're not a bureaucracy and we're encouraged to use common sense. Just because a user voluntarily opts-in to an enforceable restriction doesn't mean they can opt-out of it at any point in their choosing. And, to address Tony's points: that notion of admins unilaterally strong-arming people into agreeing to logged editing restrictions is unrealistic. We log final warnings already, which are de facto enforceable. The idea that admins would stop doing that and instead opt for manipulating people into "voluntarily" accepting formal sanctions including enforcement provisions is just not convincing. I don't see this RfC clarification changing the status quo at all. Yes, this never happens, but why should we not keep it open as a potential option? S warm   ♠  00:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak support, where all the conditions outlined at the head of the RfC are met (clearly logged and defined ban), it seems obvious that a 'plea-bargained' ban should hold the same force as any other. But reading above and below, this may be a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. A much more common problem, in my experience, is where an editor 'gets off the hook' at ANI by agreeing to some vaguely worded 'voluntary' sanction or promise to 'be a good boy' in order to 'turn off the heat'. Unfortunately, such voluntary promises aren't - and can't be - enforcable except in the sense that they are 'taken into account' the next time we are all at ANI dealing with the same problem again. Also, natural justice requires that an editor accepting a voluntary (logged) sanction should be made aware of what they are committing themselves to, otherwise we run risks of the editor themselves, or others 'gaming the system'. Pincrete (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 15) Conditional Support Either make logged voluntary bans enforcable or don't allow logged voluntary bans. I don't much care which, but the alternative (voluntary bans that are not enforcable) is just absurd. Voluntary does not meen without consequence. In fact, one of the requirements for a contract to be enforcable in most places is that it was entered into voluntarily by both parties. If it's going to be logged, the log should be meaningful (i.e., enforcable). If it isn't going to be meaningful, we shouldn't waste time and space keeping track of information that won't (can't?) be acted upon. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, since generally speaking these "voluntary" restrictions are self-imposed as a pre-emptive measure to avoid admin-imposed restrictions. Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose (No)

 * 1) If it's enforceable, it's not voluntary.  Sandstein   06:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Australian Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator would beg to differ: . My point is that "enforceable" and "voluntary" are not mutually exclusive as you claim. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In any natural understanding of English, is 100% correct. Voluntary implies someone can cease doing something at any time. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say the opposite. If I volunteer for service in the armed forces, I can't simply cease to serve when I wish to stop. Doing something voluntarily doesn't mean you can cease whenever you choose; doing something voluntarily means you opted to enter rather than being pressed into entering it. There are many services/activities/groups/processes for which people volunteer that require them to be bound by the same expectations as those who are drafted or ordered into the same situation. Grandpallama (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you get paid and you signed an employment contract, which means it isn't actually voluntary. There are multiple ways the word can be used, but the most natural understanding is "something I'm choosing to do on my own accord." TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The disconnect seems to be semantic. There are two elements at issue - how the agreement is made and how it is enforced i.e. a restriction agreed to voluntarily yet enforced compulsorily vs voluntarily agreed to with no mechanism of enforcement. Jbh  Talk  14:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If I enter into a contract willingly, then I'm bound by its provisions. The use of "voluntary" addresses my ability to choose to enter said contract, but it doesn't allow me to void it at will. Grandpallama (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Agreeing to voluntary restrictions (to avoid imposed sanctions) is effectively a verbal contract between the problematic (or "allegedly problematic") editor and the community. If it were ignorable after the fact, it would be a WP:SANCTIONGAME situation (specifically a form of "borderlining", under point no. 3 there).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) A voluntary ban allows some issues to fade away in a way that saves face for participants and which benefits the encyclopedia. Trying to formalize a voluntary editing restriction so that it becomes involuntary is not helpful. No silver bullet will remove the need to handle difficult cases. An admin can always block a user for continuing disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not actually true, though. Only for certain clear-cut abuses under the WP:Blocking policy, or in topics where special community-authorized WP:General sanctions exist, or in topics where WP:AC/DS applies and the editor in question has been notified of the applicability of discretionary sanctions. (Yes, welcome to the world of ArbCom ignoring WP:NOT policy and implementing a bunch of stupid bureaucracy. It's been an abject disaster, but we're still stuck with it for now.)  Otherwise, if an admin thinks you're maybe being disruptive, they have to go through the same channels you or I do to see whether the community agrees (in the aggregate, e.g. at ANI or another more specific WP:Notice board; or via our elected "judges" at ArbCom, either WP:RFARB for new matters or WP:ANEW for rehash of old disputes).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I do get the idea, and I agree the issue needs to be addressed, but I think we need to address the cause, not the effect. We need to be wise to the fact that suggesting a voluntary restriction is frequently a tactic used to avoid the imposition of a community restriction.  In much the same way as the fake-out temporary "retirement", it can be gamed.  If a restriction is clearly warranted then it should not be voluntary, it should be imposed by the community. Fish +Karate  08:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your point seems self-contradictory to me. If we know that people frequently game ANI reports (and they do) by volunteering to abide by an editing restriction because they know it will shut down the ANI conversation and avoid a vote on a community restriction, that's all the more reason to make their voluntary restrictions enforceable. Once it's been offered, too many people will say the vote on a community restriction is unnecessary, or they will oppose in light of the disruptive editor's offering. Grandpallama (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is we don't let them make a voluntary restriction, by not recognising such things; we override it with a community restriction. There only appears to be three voluntary restrictions in place at the moment, let's not let that list grow and create an additional level of restrictions; I feel it's better to absorb this 'voluntary level' into community restrictions rather than have an additional set of guidelines for voluntary restrictions. Fish +Karate  12:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * to drive home your point. There are three logged restrictions currently. There have only been four ever. We just don't do this normally, and if anything, that subpage should be sent to MfD when this RfC is done. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification, which makes your opposition vote make more sense to me. I didn't see anything in your initial statement that suggested you were simultaneously suggesting that voluntary restrictions should be abolished altogether. Grandpallama (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose for various reasons: first, there are currently only two reasons allowed by policy where an admin can unilaterally impose sanctions on an editor: when authorized by the arbitration committee through the discretionary sanctions regime and when making unblock conditions. This would be a dangerous expansion of admin power from beyond mere warning of "if you do this again I will block you" (current status) to "If you do this again, it will be in violation of a logged community sanction and you will be blocked regardless of whether or not my warning is right and my actions will be subject to far less scrutiny than if I just blocked you now." That's a dangerous expansion of admin power. Even if it is "voluntary", we all know that most of these are agreed to in order to forestall the block button, so in effect this would be giving admins the power to unilaterally ban in a new way.Next, we never do this. We have literally only logged voluntary restrictions four times in our 17 year history, and I'd argue that at least one of them should be considered community based, and I'd classify the other three times its been used as informal understandings/warnings that would have no policy basis to enforce as a sanctionoutside of the actions being disruptive in themselves.Finally, and possibly most importantly, this would be a massive increase in bureaucracy that would not help the project and would entirely defeat the point of voluntary restrictions: they exist to avoid having this stuff logged. They exist to help people save face and not be embarrassed. They exist as a way for admins to show that WP:AGF still exists and that we are willing to take someone's word on it and that, despite what some think, most of us are actually still humans and understand that a handshake is often still the easiest way to resolve things. I negotiate this sort of thing with users frequently: normally informal IBANS, but sometimes other "just stay away" type things. My ability to do so would vastly be decreased if I ever logged them, and I'm afraid that if this passes, and I didn't, the Wikilawyering would go up when really all I was doing was using admin discretion to block someone for being disruptive, not enforcing some informal agreement.I get the idea that we should hold people to their word, but there is no reason to up the ridiculous amount of bureaucracy on this site in one of the few areas left where we trust people to not need it. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose: per semantic understanding of Sandstein, and reasoning by TonyBallioni. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 14:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I had been about to support this. However, TonyBallioni convinced me quite thoroughly of their point of view. Icarosaurvus (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose If users voluntarily agree not to do certain things, that's their choice, and if they decide to go back on it, we can always impose mandatory sanctions. But "voluntary" is by definition not mandatory, and making it such will just serve to confuse people. If you really want to make them enforceable, call them something else. Smartyllama (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose but only in so far as a real enforceable thing, after all we can all do it voluntarily now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, I want people to have a way to just say "Okay, I'll avoid (editing in that area|interacting with Editor A|doing whatever else is causing problems) for a while". If they do that, cool off, and later return to doing whatever they were without being disruptive next time, great. If they continue to cause trouble again, then a formal and enforceable restriction can be considered since clearly the voluntary one wasn't enough. But in a lot of these cases, it's just an editor saying "You're right, I'm getting too excited about this, I'll take a break from it." Someone should be able to do it without having it formalized in terms of time, appeal, whatever else have you. If the editor is self-reflective enough to realize that they need to disengage for a while, I'm willing to accept that they'll know when they've cooled off enough to come back. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think someone just saying 'I'll take a break from it' is ever treated as a voluntary restriction. A voluntary restriction is when someone agrees to an iban or a topic ban or whatever and a generally contentious ANI thread, yet often one which is heading towards a formal restriction, is closed without bothering to waste time in achieving consensus since there editor has basically said consensus is not necessary, I agree to abide by this. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Voluntary means that something is not binding, i.e. it is not enforceable and can be withdrawn from at any time without notice. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly possible to enter into a contract voluntarily but accept that it is enforceable once one has done so. It happens all the time. Voluntary does not always mean that "something is not binding": it often means that something is freely agreed to, irrespective of whether it is subsequently binding or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Sandstein and Tony - As it's not enforceable it would be pointless logging etc, I see the logic in both sides but yeah plonking myself here. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. No, obviously, and we should get rid of the section. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose (somewhat weakly) after careful consideration for the reasons given by TonyBallioni. Additionally, if we can't trust the user not to abide by the voluntary restriction, we should not be extending them that offer (presumably to head off further sanctions at ANI/etc.). Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Tony. Allowing a voluntary restriction is showing trust in that editor to do what's best, if they abuse that trust then the community should (and very likely will) impose a restriction on them. If consensus does end up being against voluntary restrictions being enforceable, the section on WP:Editing restrictions should be removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Rob. The page Editing restrictions/Voluntary should be marked as deprecated.  Sanctions at ANI that are voluntarily agreed to and then endorsed by the community should be treated the same as any other community sanctions.  If an editor wants to say on their user/talk page that they voluntarily agree to something, they're free to do so, but it shouldn't be considered binding by the community. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I think it's helpful to have the option of voluntarily entering into a restriction, as a way to resolve a dispute without having to keep on arguing it. If an editor decides to back out, then assess their subsequent conduct. I guess this means that the restriction isn't enforceable per se, but its existence can be taken into account if the editor regresses. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose (I misinterpreted the question. Moving to support. Sorry) This RfC attempts to establish an up-or-down answer to whether voluntary restrictions are enforceable, and no options other than a hard yes or a hard no are even offered. There should not be any sort of hard answer to this question, and there is actually no reason to establish one. These should obviously be treated on a case-by-case basis using the context of each individual situation along with common sense. I reject this needless rules creep, but since there are only two options offered, I wholly oppose making these enforceable as a rule. Theoretically, can a voluntary restriction be enforced? Sure: if enforcement is something that is voluntarily agreed to. That is the case with one of our voluntary restrictions ('s). The user directly agreed to an actual, enforceable TBAN, voluntarily. Compare this with 's voluntary restriction. Rusf10 agreed to that TBAN as a gesture of good faith conflict resolution, even after the community declined to sanction him. Obviously that is not something that should be enforced as a hard community sanction. Same with the voluntary interaction ban. Two users agreed to stay away from each other. No administrator should even begin to consider that a mandate to block either one of them if they go back on that. I also strongly oppose deprecation. These are extraordinary and rare cases, but they serve their purpose. The project would not benefit by removing the concept of a voluntary, but formal, restriction, as one of our conflict resolution options. Keep the status quo, because it's literally a non-issue. S warm   ♠  09:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe you have misread this. No restriction which is not agreed to be enforceable is enforceable. That is the whole reason they are recorded. I did not come up with the way this is done. I just found that admins would not enforce recorded restrictions which had an enforcement component. All this RfC is intended to do is see if there is a consensus that an enforceable restriction which has been logged on that page should actually be enforced. As matters previously stood the admins I asked said they would not do so. That said I do disagree with your interpretation of the Rusf10 situation in particular. As I recall  himself said he expected that the restriction would be enforced. I can not find the diff so I pinged in case I misremember or if his view may have evolved.  Jbh  Talk  13:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - yes, you are correct, I did say that. What is the point of someone accepting a voluntary restriction if it can't be enforced?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * As we're discussing this, we should keep in mind the move to technically implement more granular blocks anticipated to come this year, which will provide an additional avenue of enforcement beyond after-the-fact sanctions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, granular blocks are going to be a clusterfuck and are a disaster waiting to happen. This RfC is about the banning policy, not some decade old dream that people are starting to realize will be a nightmare if actually used. Let's stay on topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There are three editors who are currently subject to restrictions listed on #Voluntary who I think should be notified since this directly effects them. Would someone, assuming they find it proper, please let them know of this discussion. I prefer not to do so to avoid even the appearance of canvassing. Thank you. Jbh  Talk  14:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty meh on it. It doesn't affect them directly as its just a policy thing. Advertising it well should be sufficient. I don't necessarily think we shouldn't do it, I just don't think we need to. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the input. That is why I asked rather than pinged  Jbh  Talk  14:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're going to have voluntary restrictions on editing, I'm still in the support camp regarding their enforcement. But I found the suggestion that they shouldn't be accepted at all to be much more persuasive as an appropriate course of action. Grandpallama (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, we normally just don’t log them and then use the diff as an example of a warning/attempt at prior disputes resolution. An example: my talk page is semi-frequently used as neutral ground for people who don’t like each other to argue and seek a 3rd opinion. 9/10 my advice is “You both clearly don’t like each other and neither is really violating any policy, just agree not to go near the other.” Most of the time this works really well and both parties agree to an IBAN of sorts. I never log these and would never consider blocking based on one, but if one party keeps bothering the other, I might cite it in evidence of why a short harassment block is needed. I think this informal system works much better than a logged system for these type of things. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense for me in the IBAN field. But I've seen a few voluntary declarations of a TBAN in recent weeks, and I just don't buy that those can be voluntary and not enforced. Either we expect someone to abide by the same expectations of a community-imposed TBAN (hence my vote), or the notion of self-imposed TBANs to address problematic editing should be rejected as not something that the community will accept as a resolution to problematic editing. Like I said, I've seen that latter approach pop up a couple of times very recently at ANI, and it completely struck me as someone avoiding a block. And the moment the editor suggested acceptance of a voluntary TBAN, the discussion immediately turned to how the community could just drop the discussion. However, it seems to me that the dropping of the discussion implicitly relies upon the assumption that the community would hold the editor to their voluntary TBAN. But if there's no enforcement, it's just an escape hatch. I completely and absolutely understand your (and others') argument that this is best handled either completely informally or with a straight community-enforced TBAN/IBAN, but in practice I see the community unwilling to continue the discussion and take that final, necessary step. Because no one wants to spend more time at the dramaboard than necessary. Grandpallama (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Could a user rescind it after they get a block? At one point does the "rescindation" come into effect? If they are taken to ANI over violation can they rescind it then, but before a block?Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

An editor who voluntarily puts a restriction on themselves usually does it to stave off an official one of worse value. ANI is full of times where an editor, trying to get that last piece of rope, will say "Okay I won't revert more than one time, so please don't ban me from wikipedia." And more often than not they end up getting dragged back to ANI anyway. I'm of the mind that if an editor self imposes a restriction in order to stave off further punishment, then that restriction IS the punishment and should not be worthless. --Tarage (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I'd like to point out that self imposed blocks are blocks. Why shouldn't it be the same here? --Tarage (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And I have sen the "well he did ask for a voluntary block" or "but all of his blocks were voluntary" as reason for not imposing community sanctions. Now if it was a case this would be just like a "real" block, and could not be used as a demonstration of good faith I would change my vote.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This all seems like a debate over something that is not causing a real problem. In the one case I negotiated a solution with the evidently more reasonable side in a dispute and the community voted the other restriction based on the "voluntary" restriction. I hope a similar approach might work in other disputes. Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That, in my view very productive approach, is what brings this issue to the fore. If such voluntarily entered into restrictions are not enforceable or will not be enforced by admins even if they are logged then they are useless and such solutions will not be accepted in the future. This is not to say that all 'voluntary restrictions' must be logged. The logged restriction is just another tier – kind of like an unblock condition without needing the block. The difference is on the meta level – the policy basis for the restriction. An unblock condition is part or an admin's authority to block and unblock. A voluntarily agreed enforceable sanction is derived from the community's authority to ban. In this case the community is represented by the individual making the promise. Essentially they are c-banning themselves and the rest of the community is notified of this by the logging process. From that point it is just like any other community placed sanction.  Jbh  Talk  23:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree that if the way this turns out is that consensus says they are not enforceable then there should not be logs as they are toothless provisions so logging them doens’t do anything but clutter up already absurdly long logs at WP:RESTRICT and other such venues. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you tell the cop "sorry, I'll not speed and he lets you off with a warning, that is not really enforcable". If you are charged and strike a plea deal, that is enforceable. I believe this is an area with with shades of enforceability. Nothing to get worked up over. Legacypac (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm in two minds about this. Firstly, I don't buy Sandstein's semantic point; a ban voluntarily entered into is still a ban and should be enforced.  As for whether they are a good thing, on the one hand, I can see TonyBallioni's point about this being an expansion of admin power; I can certainly see admins using the threat of a block to force a user into a "voluntary" ban, essentially gaining the power to place bans unilaterally, and I agree that would be a bad thing.  On the other hand, the much more common cases, where an editor sees the writing on the wall in an ANI discussion and avoids a community ban by entering into a voluntary one, or users who are unblocked with conditions, are ones where I think we should be enforcing "voluntary" bans more strictly.  If a user can be unblocked by agreeing to conditions, immediately break those conditions and then appeal a subsequent block on the grounds that the conditions were voluntary, what's the point?  On my third hand (which I've just had surgically fitted) I do see someone's point above, that if someone abides by a ban for a bit, edits with no problems, the troubles blow over, then years later they make an edit which is perfectly fine except that it's a violation of their "voluntary" ban, we shouldn't then be blocking them for a technical violation of an old voluntary ban.To summarise all that, I'd propose the following:
 * Voluntary bans should be enforceable; otherwise there's no point.
 * A voluntary ban can be entered into in the course of a community discussion or as an unblock condition. They cannot be entered into at other times.  This is intended as a check on the power of individual admins to impose bans unilaterally; once they've blocked someone, that action is open to a block review at AN, where accusations of forcing a user into a "voluntary" ban can be dealt with.
 * A voluntary ban must be logged at WP:Editing restrictions to be enforceable. This is just to make it easier for admins to enforce the bans and follows similar practice from other types of editing restriction.
 * A voluntary ban can last for at most six months (1 year?). After the ban expires, if the problem is gone then the community wins.  If not, then the usual dispute resolution processes kick back in, and I'd guess that would usually end up with a community sanction.
 * I think I'm essentially proposing voluntary bans as a way to formally forestall a community sanction or indef block for a fixed period. GoldenRing (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , you're missing my point entirely. Most voluntary restrictions that should be logged already come after consensus has developed so they are logged as community sanctions. We don't log them separately and shouldn't. The rest of them are normally just discussions on talk pages. We should not log those as it would mean that anytime I'm having a conversation with someone, there is always a threat of my adding a diff to some stupid log that we never use and holding it over someone's head later. My point is, yes, if someone is being disruptive, of course we block them and cite the discussion as them knowing they are on their last warning. We do this anyway. As I'd mentioned above, I would love to see an example where 1) we have actually enforced a logged voluntary sanction (we haven't) 2) a situation where an informal voluntary sanction should have been logged 3) a situation where adding this policy would have done anything.Also, as a point of clarification, we aren't talking about unblock conditions here, which policy already holds as binding. We are talking about informal talk page discussions, which is where the overwhelming majority of "voluntary restrictions" occur. Making us log these would be utterly ridiculous and completely change the power dynamic on the site. Literally anything you say on any talk page could somehow be construed as a voluntary restriction.Finally, I know you have a bit more of a bureaucratic bent than most (not said as a criticism, so do I) but do we really want to turn something that works really well on an informal basis into a bureaucratic mess with rules like you propose? Think about it: in 17 years and ~2000 admins total, the need to log these has only been felt 4 times. That means that the current system of "I'm about to block you. Please don't edit this area again for a bit or I will block you if its disruptive." "Okay, sure." is working well. Additionally, to my knowledge, we've never had to enforce any of the logged sanctions, which further suggests that when people say they will do something, they actually mean it in most circumstances.My ultimate concern here is that we have never seen the need for this in the past. Our current system of admins actually, you know, talking to people and trying to find workable solutions with them where no one has anything formal hanging over their head works, and I don't see the need to have a situation where we basically slap people in the face and treat them like children when they are agreeing to act better. Look, I don't know any admin who doesn't keep tabs on someone they give a warning to in some way (whether it be watchlisting the talk page, the problem pages, checking contribs, etc.) If something is actually going wrong, it will be dealt with. There's no need to further complicate things.Sorry if this was longwinded, but I just hate the idea that we are treating people more like babies and adding further bureaucracy to something that has never been an issue in the past, motivated in part by an attempt at desysop reform, which will likely never pass on its own. I respect a lot of people on the support side (and Jbh), I just can't fathom any benefit from this and see a lot of negatives. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps we mostly agree. With regard to things that happen on random talk pages etc, I agree that those shouldn't be logged and shouldn't be binding - hence the second point of my proposal above.  With regard to unblock conditions, I understand these are enforceable but I'm saying I would personally find it useful for these to be logged somewhere (I guess the block log is where this mostly happens now, but its use is not very consistent).  And with regard to discussions on ANI or similar, there are certainly enough people complaining above about people who enter voluntary restrictions in bad faith as a way of avoiding sanctions that it seems this is a problem.  So I'm not saying that the current use of this log is very good, but rather that I can see a use for it but not what it currently is.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * for unblock conditions the block log is probably the best place, IMO: I always permalink to them, and I think it provides context anytime another admin is considering a block (and is a lot easier to check than WP:ER, which to be frank, I think most admins only check when someone raises a complaint at ANI about a breach of a sanction.)In terms of voluntary restrictions at ANI, I think the easiest way to explain it would be Voluntary bans that are undertaken when community consensus has already developed should be logged as community placed restrictions. I think this phrasing also has the advantage of reinforcing that there are only three ways to be sanctioned: via ArbCom/DS, as conditions for lifting a block, or through explicit community consensus. An editor doesn't have the ability to restrict themselves to just anything to get out of a sanction: it needs community ratification if it is already at a community noticeboard. If the community doesn't think it necessary and is willing to take someone at their word, that breach of the community's trust will be held against them quite strongly at the next ANI anyway. I hope that makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just noting that conditional unblocks are logged at Editing restrictions, and linked in the block log, per the policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning support on this one. Others have mentioned that voluntary restrictions are generally to stave of worse ones at AN. Especially when both sides are at fault. Breaking voluntary restrictions should be just the same as breaking community imposed restrictions, as these are generally self-imposed in community areas. However, a personal restriction, such as my endeavouring to self-impose 1RR (i.e. BRD) on all pages, not just ARBPIA, is not the same. That sort of personal "restriction" is not logged, it is just part of your editing philosophy. If there's a log of it, there's good reason. However, I do agree that voluntary restrictions should be revokable at any time (I don't support a "minimum appeal" time for them). However, any such revocation should be done before breaking the restriction, announced to the community (preferably on the same board as the original discussion), linking to the original discussion clearly. And the sanctions should be considered binding until the conclusion of that discussion. Just my view, though. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  12:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternate
Anyone who offers to voluntarily accept a sanction in a community discussion is effectively !voting for that outcome. Anyone else who accepts that offer, or who indicates that it resolves the issue, is effectively !voting for that outcome. And when someone offers to accept a sanction, I suggest that generally nullifies the weight of !votes for lesser sanction or opposing sanction. So we've got a consensus, just close the discussion with the "voluntary sanction" as a consensus result. No more evading sanctions by offering to accept them, it's closed as a community sanction. Problem solved? Alsee (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is actually community consensus for a sanction, then yes, that is the correct way to do it in my mind. If someone just says "Okay, I'll chill and not edit X." I don't think it is the same thing and don't think it should be logged. The question is whether or not there is an active community consensus for forcing an enforceable restriction on someone. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Determining that can be tricky, though – and wiki-political. I did a negotiated close for a voluntary restriction several years ago at ANI.  Some non-admin closed in the middle of that negotiation and was reverted.  An admin closed in favor of a short-term restriction, then revised his/her own close to use the negotiated, voluntary version, for the same time-span. Then another editor reverted the close. Then the admin put it back. Then another Admin B reverted that back to the original close, forcing Admin A to use Admin's A's original wording, denying that party the right to revise their own close.  It was bizarre – downright aberrant – and served absolutely no purpose but punitive action, against policy (since the voluntary negotiated close produced the same effective result). If even one more of those parties had been an admin it would have constituted a WP:WHEELWAR, and it's just blind coincidence that two of the reverters didn't have the admin bit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should have been handled via formal discussion akin to a closure review, but if I understand your description I'm not sure I agree there was anything wrong with the outcome. Assuming there was community consensus for a certain outcome, it seems correct that this was correctly noted as something with community consensus. I admit, in the past I wouldn't have cared. But it seems clear from the !vote count that despite the common sentiment at ANI, restrictions voluntarily agreed at ANI are actually not formal restrictions in lieu of a community !vote that are enforceable, but instead just a completely voluntary comment that is basically worthless since if the editor violates it there is no consequence except possibly counting against them in a future ANI. As I said above, I think we need to be a lot more diligent now. In the past, we often simply closed something as a voluntary restriction of some sort, sometimes even when there was probably already consensus for a formal restriction but it seems clear we shouldn't be doing this. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a large part of the difference of opinion is what should be logged on that page and what should not. I think, and current practice seems to bear out, that there is a difference between 'OK, I'll chill out on that topic for a while' (not logged) and 'OK. I'll accept an n month topic ban' (logged) . The first is the way we handle informal de-escalation and conflict resolution and there is no reason to stop that nor does anything in this RfC require we do so. The second allows formal restrictions to be enforced. The biggest benefit, in my opinion, is it allows the sanctioned editor to avoid the drama of a drawn out ANI or to negotiate a multi-way solution like Rusf10 did.  This last feature lets the disputants, should they desire, to negotiate a de-escalation regime amongst themselves, or with a third party facilitator thereby avoiding the drama of the community stepping in via ANI. For instance A and B agree a cool down is needed between them on an article. They can both TBAN themselves from the article with confidence the community will enforce the agreement. Whether this will actually occur, I do not know, although anecdotally I have seen conflicts continue because 'promises are just words'. ANI is a blunt instrument suited to simple things but it can not handle complex conflicts between/among experienced editors.  What I do not anticipate happening is all of a sudden every informal agreement will become a formal, logged restriction. The page has been around for a long time without that happening.  Jbh  Talk  23:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)