Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 21

Ds/alert use or misuse
At 11:13, 21 May 2019, the following Ds/talk notice was added to the Get the L Out article:

The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, including this article.

Five minutes later, at 11:18, 21 May 2019, the following Ds/alert was posted in my Talk page:

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

Question 1: Does a Ds/talk notice need to be posted  before  edits are made to an article or  after  edits have been made to an article? Question 2: When did the Arbitration Committee rule that any Wikipedia editor can post a Ds/alert on an editor's talk page? Question 3: If any editor can post a Ds/alert on an editor's talk page, what are the steps that must be followed before this action is taken? Are there any criteria in place that govern the posting of a Ds/alert by non-Admin editors? Question 4: When did the AC rule that the Ds/talk notice applies to any and all articles that relate to gender and transgender issues? If any editor is allowed to employ a Ds/alert for any reason and anytime, then it can be misused as a tool for attempted intimidation. I seek clarification of the specific measures in place for when a Ds/alert is warranted. (The edit history for the reason why I've created this topic can be provided if needed.) Thank you. Pyxis Solitary  yak  22:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC) As I see it, the purpose of a Ds notice was weaponized. There is no accompanying oversight when a Ds/alert is employed by random editors and the Arbitration Committee created a monster by not attaching checks and balances to its usage. Pyxis Solitary  yak  00:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Chilling, isn’t it? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Both during my time at AE and on the Committee, the idea always was that an alert is not an indication or accusation that you've done anything wrong. It's just to let you know that you're editing in an area subject to heightened scrutiny, and so to step especially carefully if you should get into a dispute or the like. So long as you make sure you stick to the normal standards of editing (be civil in discussions or disagreements, don't edit war, etc.), an alert's nothing to worry about since you won't do anything for which you could get sanctioned to begin with. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not supposed to be "an indication or accusation that [an editor has] done anything wrong" -- but does what it's not supposed to be used for stop an editor from perverting its purpose? Pyxis Solitary   yak  23:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "perverting its purpose". Its purpose is to make editors aware that DS applies somewhere, and now you're aware. If you don't do anything sanctionable after receiving the alert, that will be the only effect it will have. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If a Ds/talk notice is intended as a useful purpose, and if the answer to Question 4 is "yes", then it should be added to the talk page before the article is edited, or at maximum after a few edits. But if a Ds/talk notice is [1] added after multiple edits have been made, and [2] the editor that added the Ds/talk notice made multiple edits to the article before adding the notice, and [3] the editor added a Ds/alert to another editor's talk page immediately after editing the article and adding the Ds/talk notice -- then a Ds/alert can be perverted if the reason is an attempt to intimidate another editor (which, of course, won't be admitted). Pyxis Solitary   yak  00:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade is exactly correct: DS alerts are designed to protect innocent bystanders from sanctioning, and nothing more. You are now aware of the sanctions that administrators can apply for misconduct.  You should continue not misconducting yourself.  I don't see anything within the circumstances of your alert that would suggest it was anything other than above-board.   AGK  &#9632;  21:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "You should continue not misconducting yourself." Huh? I've been a WP editor for over 10 years. I'm not a newbie here. Up to now I've been cautious in not detailing exactly what's behind the reason for my creating this discussion. I created an article on 18 May 2019. An editor who is vociferously against the subject of the article began to delete content (as of this time, 22 non-minor edits since the article was created) while the deletion nomination discussion is still in progress. Besides deleting material, if a source was from the conservative media it was deleted. Two websites were accused of being "alt-right" (they aren't). One source was in the further reading section. The editor deleted it. I salvaged the source by adding it as a citation in the body. The editor deleted it. I objected to the reasoning for the deletion and provided WP:BIASED and Bias in sources in the summary. The editor deleted the source again and THEN, on 21 May -- after deleting the source 3x and having made multiple edits to the article -- he added the Ds/talk notice to it, followed by adding a Ds/alert on my talk page 5 minutes later. Besides the specific topic of this discussion, the same editor is now suggesting that I have been canvassing by blogging and posting on social media: 1 2.
 * However, that is not an issue distinct to DS sanctions: WP:DTTR. Any fool can leave you an alert, yes, but so can they leave you another notice or warning.  I don't see how somebody is "weaponising" the alert template (or the notice, or the warning) by using it on you, unless you are doing something that would otherwise warrant a sanction.  And in the latter case, I don't think you will enjoy sympathy.   AGK  &#9632;  08:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Any fool" should not be allowed to use a Ds/alert. A warning template should be used sparingly, particularly if it's a Ds/alert warning used by an editor who has reached WP:3RR. An editor with a vested interest in editing an article should be excluded from adding a Ds/talk notice after the fact and a Ds/alert on the talk page of an editor he disagrees with. When it comes to non-Admin editors employing a Ds notice, the cart should not come before the horse because that is when the purpose of Ds becomes weaponized. There is no qualification criteria in place for the use of a Ds/alert by non-Admins. And without the existence of checks and balances Ds/alerts are open to abuse. Pyxis Solitary   yak  15:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that page-level sanctions can be only applied by an administrator, and must be accompanied by an edit notice. Without that, there isn't much point in placing a DS tag on the talk page. – bradv 🍁  23:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * To be clear, that tag is just noting active discretionary sanctions. It's a courtesy. No page restriction is in place, but editors can be sanctioned for being disruptive on that page as long as they've been notified of DS existing in the topic area, in general. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If someone has a clear pattern of misusing alerts, they can be blocked or banned from adding them. There is definitely no need for a page to have a talk page DS notice before an editor is given an alert. The alerts don't apply only to edits on articles where there has been a talk page notice added. Or even just to articles. User:Pyxis Solitary you asked "When did the AC rule that the Ds/talk notice applies to any and all articles that relate to gender and transgender issues?" The quote you included from the alert says "Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic." Note again, "edits related to the topic", not "articies". This means anywhere on Wikipedia. The alert also says "For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here." If you had clicked on "here" you would have had the answer to your question. Doug Weller  talk 09:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely ArbCom policy by fiat. Also short circuits the “ArbCom is a last resort” by automatically bringing even minor matters under the purview of ArbCom procedure pseudo policy.  It is a shallow fiction that ArbCom is not dealing with content when to decides to cool things in whole content areas using its own power of this chilling effect of a DS warning slapped on your usertalk warning you now that your one misstep from an action of last resort.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Expand footnote 2?
From section Arbitration/Policy:

"The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities: ...


 * 3. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;"

Note 2 on the same page clarifies this: ... administrator accounts which had been inactive for over a year ... may also be desysopped by a community process, and links to subsection of Administrators. The linked subsection "Procedural removal for inactive administrators" is actually a part of section Review and removal of adminship. Should the Note 2 be altered to explain the whole section, not just a subsection of policy WP:ADMIN? There is also another project page about removal of administrative tools—Bureaucrats. Should it be referenced in the same or separate footnote? —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: DS Awareness and alerts (July 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Atsme at 19:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Motion - The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure was modified.
 * Motion - The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure was modified.


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Basic DS template respective to the particular sanction, be it AP2, Pseudoscience, BLP, etc.


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Basic DS template respective to the particular sanction, be it AP2, Pseudoscience, BLP, etc.
 * See User talk:Atsme top of the page - custom DS Notice

Statement by Atsme
Topics subject to DS require that we alert users of same.

Reasoning: some established editors have been the recipients of multiple DS alerts which may be viewed as harassment or abuse of the process. Admins have been taken to task for it from time to time. It typically occurs when a disagreement arises in a conflicted area and a DS notice suddenly appears on an editor's TP. Some editors, intentionally or otherwise, will add a DS template on the TP of an opponent without first checking to see if that editor is already aware, the latter of which is a difficult task in itself, but it can be easily remedied. While DS alerts are included on the conflicted article's TP, and typically in an edit view banner for the article itself, such notices apparently aren't enough.


 * Adding current special rules:09:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC) My bold


 * "Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts."
 * Template:Ds/alert: When you attempt to save the alert on a user talk page: "Special rules govern alerts. You must not give an editor an alert if they have already received one for the same area of conflict within the last twelve months. Please now check that this editor has not already been alerted to this area of conflict in the last twelve months: [links to logs and stuff here]".

My proposal is an effort to help limit DS alert template overuse/abuse (perceived or otherwise) by allowing editors, who are already aware of DS in specific topic areas, to include a permanent notice (customized or standardized) at the top of their user TP stating they are aware of specific areas subject to DS. In order for it to work, ArbCom needs to modify the DS Awareness section to include some form of mandatory check for said TP DS notices before an editor adds the respective DS alert template. I have a customized DS Notice at the top of my user page which I customized for aesthetics, but until ArbCom formally includes/accepts such notices as an acceptable notice of awareness and makes checking for same a mandatory procedure, the harassment issue will probably continue. It is actually an easy and efficient way for editors to make sure they are not overusing the DS alert template, or inadvertently finding themselves in a dispute over it.


 * - notice of sanctions for abusing the alert process are already in place - it's not something I added. The problem is knowing where to go to find the info - the notice at the top of one's TP is to help editors, not impede them. As indicated above, my wording is simply an example. I am not asking that a permanent TP notice be mandatory - it's simply an option. What I'm requesting is for ArbCom to recognize the optional TP notices as an editor's statement that they are aware of DS in the named topic areas. It's a convenience for others and saves them the trouble of having to search for prior alerts, or possibly be sanctioned for abusing the alert process. 10:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , perhaps I've misundertsood your response but it does not address what I've proposed. I'm simply asking for ArbCom to include in their list of AWARENESS the recognition of an optional (custom or standard) Alert Notice on the top of a user TP as satisfying the alert requirement - that's all - very simple. Go to a TP of an editor who gets a lot of traffic and tell me if you can easily find if that editor has received an alert in the past 12 mos. Notices are difficult to find, especially for TP that get a lot of traffic. ArbCom made the special rule that an editor can be sanctioned for abuse of the DS alert - particularly because adding it after an editor is already aware of sanctions could be considered harassment by one's opponent - and that is why I proposed the above - to avoid potential harassment and potential sanctioning as a result. Atsme Talk 📧 11:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rob, Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions leads with (my bold underline) No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:. The latter tells us an editor can be made aware by various methods, but then we're advised these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently Ds/alert – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted.  Then we have: Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year.  Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.  Jiminy Cricket. In retrospect, I probably should have asked ArbCom to simply recognize a customized DS awareness alert at the top of one's user page as formal notification, which makes things less complicated, spares editors potential sanctioning who are not aware of the TP search capability you were kind enough to bring to my attention. Apparently, quite a few editors aren't aware of that feature because in 2017, I received 3 DS alerts (2 in the same month, 1 the next month) despite my being fully aware of the DS topic area(s) via other means listed in the green box. At the time, it sure felt like harrassment. In 2019, I received yet another alert despite the notice at the top of my page and my being fully aware of DS in the topic area. I believe there are quite a few others who can relate. I just hope ArbCom will consider simply recognizing as formal notification (1) a customized DS alert awareness notice at the top of a user's TP and will (2) modify the following statement if the standard template message – currently Ds/alert – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted to accommodate it.  Apologies for any confusion I may have caused for not being more clear in my initial statement. Atsme  Talk 📧 14:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually tried to avoid bringing into this discussion because as you can see from some of the responses here, people don't always AGF and for some reason, they become defensive over something as harmless as this request. I'm not the one who decided there has been abuse of the DS/Alert template - ArbCom made that decision, and that is probably where Bishonen can get answers - but for now, I'll just add that what triggered my request was this discussion wherein Doug very undeservedly was taken to task over the template, and I felt bad for him. I mentioned my idea to him, and that discussion is what brought me here, so all the wild guesses over why I've made this proposal can now be put to rest. I have seen admins taken to task by angry editors for no good reason, and I have seen editors harassed over the templates so I simply sought a remedy I thought might help eliminate or at least reduce the issues. I've seen it quite a few times but my purpose here is not to get anyone in trouble, including myself, because chances are, my detractors will somehow spin things around to make it all my fault, and that's what I consider a sad state of affairs. Atsme  Talk 📧 12:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , had I known you would have been offended by this, I would have approached it much differently. It was not my intention to purposely offend or hurt anyone's feelings - I was in defense mode - and I certainly hope you can understand why I was feeling piled-on after what I had just been through in January. Over time, such things tend to make an editor defensive, and that is what I'm trying to avoid happening to others by proposing something as simple as a custom DS alert notice that ArbCom will acknowledge. No harm - no foul. When other editors know the targeted editor is aware, why add that ugly template to their TP? Mandruss, you obviously have an advanced understanding of the technical intricacies of filters and how to find things some of us spend hours trying to find or never find. I'll be first to admit that I've had no professional/academic training in code much less CSS. Everything I know was self-taught and my introduction began back in the day when all we had was C> which later became C:\>. When Steven Jobs brought us the first Mac, I was elated!! Long story short - I hope some day you will stop seeing me as someone who is trying to complicate things when my goal is quite the opposite. My perspective branches out to newbies, to busy editors who simply aren't aware of all the perks and shortcuts, and/or to those of us who have trouble remembering all the acronyms, code and shortcuts. WP deals with all age groups and all levels of computer knowledge, and I believe it's worth the time to explore the full potential of our volunteers, and help them find a niche where they'll be happiest and can do the most good for the project. And Mandruss, you are welcome to comment on my TP anytime - I apologize for my lack of patience that day and for deleting your comment, and I hope you understand why I acted in that manner. I will try to do better. 🕊  Atsme  Talk 📧 00:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - I disagree with most of what you've said, including your comments to GRuban, me, and overall in your statement. <---constructive criticism. I see it more as squelching a much simpler process in support of a more complicated one. I don't see how my proposal makes things more complicated. Yes, it adds a tiny bit of work for ArbCom to make a few minor adjustments to their already complicated requirements - so sit on a whoopee cushion and we'll all have a good laugh. All one has to do is read and try to understand what ArbCom intended and why they chose the route they did - but first, install a fan, blow away all the smoke, and then tell me what you see. I'm of the mind that you'll find editors making excuses that they weren't aware the article was under DS in an attempt to get out of a t-ban or block which is what led to the "remedy" we have in place now - basically ignorance of the law - it has worked in some instances, and probably should have, so now what we have created is growing bureaucracy that requires alerts every year, leaving the ambiguity over what is or isn't harassment in place which further leaves opposing POVs vulnerable and subject to biases - and that is what you consider a simplified process? If so, I don't agree, which is why I made this request to simply things. If this discussion closes with nothing more than editors thinking about the things I've pointed out, I see it as progress; albeit at a slow crawl. Atsme Talk 📧 20:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * - thank you for making that connection about the bot/auto notices. I think it serves indirectly to support this request and allowing custom DS Alert awareness notices at the top of a user page. Maybe it will help lighten things up on the requirements necessary for establishing a user's awareness. Most new editors are simply not going to be aware of DS issues when they first show-up at an article - how could they be? Eventually, they learn but that's also when these other irritiating issues begin to rear their ugly little heads - including DS Alerts. It's easy for veteran editors to say how easy it is to look for prior notices using scripts, search options, etc. because they are familiar with the community and the processes - but we also have to take into consideration the thousands of editors, both old and new, who are not aware of all the options available, much less code or the many acronyms. So what is wrong with simplifying the process so that it doesn't require a wikilawyer, a great deal of effort or experience - just add a DS alert awareness notice at the top of your TP, and be done with it - you reduce all the guessing and leg work? KISS 💋 Atsme  Talk 📧 20:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * - please briefly explain what part of this proposal you find annoying? Are you referring to the simple addition of text to ArbCom's alert requirement and/or what is considered a formal notice? Atsme  Talk 📧 17:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarifying the following response is with reference to the proposed custom/standard TP notice at the top of user TP.  Atsme|undefined Talk 📧 16:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC) No, that is not the purpose or intent. There is obviously a misunderstanding. The notice is simply acknowledgement that the user is AWARE of DS in a given topic area. Its purpose is to save editors the trouble of searching for the bureaucratic "formal DS alert" or worse, saves them from adding a 2nd or possibly 3rd DS alert on that user's TP.  With the notice at the top of a user page, editors can quickly see if the user is aware and move on or go through the extra efforts required to post ArbCom's DS alert. It is ArbCom bureaucracy that forces the extra work and complicates things by insisting there is only one formal notice that is acceptable, so we have to jump through hoops in lieu of having a simple acknowledgement at the top of our TP. It actually eliminates the annoyance you believe it creates. Atsme  Talk 📧 18:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * - it appears you may be conflating the current abuse of DS alerts as something I've proposed when it is already part of the DS alert process by ArbCom. I support its removal. The current process is confusing and highly bureaucratic. I support ArbCom removing the misuse sanction currently in place. The crux of my proposal is quite simply for ArbCom to formally recognize a declaration of awareness at the top of a UTP as meeting the requirements for editor awareness of DS sanctions for the following reasons:
 * It's a simple DS alert notice at the top of one's UTP declaring awareness of DS in named topic areas - it remains as part of one's UTP and can be customized for aesthetics;
 * When you go to a UTP, the first place you land is at the top of the page so it's hard to miss the alert;
 * You don't have to hunt for anything as we do now because it lists all topic areas a user is aware;
 * It saves editors time researching, and potential sanctioning for abuse of the DS alert process;
 * It is optional, but will serve no purpose unless ArbCom formally recognizes it as a declaration of an editor's awareness.
 * Some of the comments below support it as an option while some suggest either (a) maintaining status quo, or (b) removing the abuse sanction from ArbCom's current policy, or (c) automating the process using a bot. My proposal simply streamlines the entire process, so if more users will opt in, the easier and less complicated it will be. Atsme Talk 📧 14:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , this proposal does not stop editors from getting a DS Alert unless they acknowledge at the top of their UTP that they are aware of DS in specific topic areas. If they don't use such a DS alert notice, then the normal procedure applies. Perhaps it would help if you re-read the proposal or maybe ask questions if you're not quite certain what is being proposed here. I will gladly oblige, preferrably on my TP so as not to break anything here. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 00:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's actually quite simple - see Galobtter's statement below. In summary, I have an aesthetic "I am DS aware" notice at the top of my TP. Either, or  (or all 3) have volunteered to write an ?embedded? or ?hidden? code we can simply add to our TP that triggers an already aware notice whenever someone attempts to add another DS notice - see Galobtter's example. I'm thinking most editors will see the custom DS-aware notice at the top of a user's TP and won't bother trying to post another one. But...if they don't see it, and attempt to post another DS notice, doing so will auto trigger an "already aware notice" and prevent it from being added. It's a wonderful thing - no aggravation - no extra work - everybody's happy. My apologies for not explaining it that simply from the get-go. Atsme Talk 📧 02:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer

 * Atsme is correct that tracking down whether an editor has received a DS notice can be difficult and a waste of time. It would really help the process, and be a help to editors who have received DS alerts and DS sanctions (as well as other editors), if DS alerts AND sanctions were logged so they could be seen in the same way and place as when one looks at an editor's block log. Please make this happen. Otherwise, I have no current opinion on Atsme's request, although I reserve the right to return. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this boils down to the need for everyone to grow thicker skin and just AGF. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I like the idea of an opt-in "I'm aware of discretionary sanctions in , " notice, and I'm fine with discouraging editors from adding another notice for any of the listed areas. However I think the proposal to make leaving another notice a sanctionable offence is going too far - e.g. alerting to major changes should be allowed (the recent merging of the Balkans sanctions into the Eastern European sanctions comes to mind as a major change that users professing awareness of one or the other should still be able to be formally made aware of). If someone is being disruptive or harassing another editor by use of the notices then that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis without most editors being dragged to AE for mistakes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of the arguments against this - the added complexity of needing to check the talk page and the filter history - could be avoided if placing a notice about your own awareness triggered the edit filter in the same way that someone else leaving a DS notice did. This would presumably require the notice to be in a standard format, but to be effective it would anyway. It would require updating each year, but one edit a year is not a burden and you can set yourself a reminder using whatever method you normally use to give yourself reminders about tasks that need doing. Thryduulf (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
Isn't the solution to getting a redundant DS notice to just remove it with the edit summary "Thanks, I already knew that"? The DS process is already complicated, why make it more complicated? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mandruss
I'll strongly oppose this, FWIW. It would be an added complication to something that is already unnecessarily complicated, without sufficient benefit to justify that added complication. I'd love to see some proposals to simplify.

BTW, editors who don't like receiving routine non-critical DS alerts can issue them to themselves, which creates the normal page history entries. I pointed this out to Atsme before she opened this item. It takes a minute or two per year, not an unreasonable burden in my opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Atsme's argument appears to rest on the false premise that it's too difficult to check the UTP history. Notices are difficult to find, especially for TP that get a lot of traffic. That is simply not true, and it's clear that Atsme wasn't aware of the easy way to do this when she opened this item. If Atsme's experience with duplicate alerts was due to good-faith lack of editor awareness (1) she is just as capable of pointing editors to the instructions as anyone else, and (2) doesn't her proposal presume and require editor awareness? If it was harassment (certainly possible, although Atsme has shown a marked tendency to perceive harassment where it doesn't exist), the solution is sanctions, not an added complication to the system that wouldn't prevent harassment anyway. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

surely there should be some way to ask that specific boilerplate notices not come to our talk pages? And surely there is one, as explained in my first comment above. Are you really supporting this added complication to the rules to save a few editors that one or two minutes per year? Are you saying editors shouldn't be subjected to boilerplate notices from themselves? Is it just me, or does this approach the comical? Seriously, molehill→mountain. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@GRuban, you're certainly not the first to fail to weigh the upside of a proposal against its downside with equal clarity and focus on both. That complexity is an ongoing cost is a fact that is very widely supported by expertsvirtually indisputableand yet almost completely ignored in countless decisions like this one throughout Wikipedia's history. That's why we have an editing environment that is maddeningly complex, and unnecessarily so. I will continue to fight that from time to time, as my time and motivation level permit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I completely understand your reasoning, and in my view you're missing the following. You propose to make things easier on editors in one way, without showing how many editors need things made easier in that way. At the same time, your proposal would make things harder on editors in a different way, a way that would affect every editor without question (that is, every editor who uses DS alerts). Currently, editors must check the page history. If your proposal were implemented, editors would have to check the top of the UTP, and then check the page history if they don't see the message. That's clearly a little more difficult; worse in my view, it's incrementally more complicated, i.e. more difficult to understand and remember. It's just a small increase in complexity, but the monumental mess we call Wikipedia editing is the sum of thousands of small increases in complexity just like this one.Thus your argument hinges on widespread use of your proposed messagethe more widespread, the betterand you ask us to take that widespread use on faith. I wouldn't use it.had I known you would have been offended by this, I would have approached it much differently. - Helpful hint for future reference: Editors will somewhat predictably be offended when you call their constructive criticism "harassment", which is a sanctionable offense. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO - This discussion is not about me or my comment on Atsme's UTP, and it's ridiculous to respond to a brief parenthetical aside with a 300-word off-topic essay. I seriously considered ignoring your comments entirely, but I assume most present will appreciate my not following you down that bottomless rabbit hole. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I really don't see the drawback of letting someone essentially opt in to knowing about DS. Let them spend one to two minutes per year showing that they know about DS, with no change required to the existing system. Or, let them stop being annoyed so easily, neither alternative too much to ask of a grown-ass man or woman. Homo sapiens is the most adaptable species on the planet, and it's a fool's errand to continually complicate the system to save a few vocal editors from having to make a small adjustment for the greater good. That only invites more of the sameliterally without end. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

- I really don't see it as a complication - It unquestionably adds a degree of complexity, slightly lengthening the learning curve for every editor introduced to DS alerts, for as long as DS alerts exist, as explained above. It will add to existing documentation and probably add one or more new software elements like templates. The return on that investment: (1) Some undetermined number of editors, only a handful that we actually know of, are saved the one or two minutes a year required to issue DS alerts to themselves, and (2) some undetermined fraction of editors who issue DS alertsthat fraction depending on how widely the new notice is used, a total unknownare saved the small effort of checking the UTP history using the filter (note that there is no requirement for any single editor to issue DS alerts, and every editor is free to leave that to others if they find that checking too difficult). I'm sorry if folks can't see that that's a bad trade-off, and I guess I've outlived any usefulness I've had in this discussion. Good luck. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork - We are here to serve the project, not have the project serve us. - Exactly. Thank you! Somebody please enlarge that, frame it, and hang it on the wall. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GRuban
Support basically per Thryduulf. We're allegedly not a bureaucracy, we don't have rules for the sake of having rules, Atsme maintains a prominent notice on her talk page that she is aware of these sanctions, and finds getting them annoying. Surely there should be some way to opt-out. Just saying "well she shouldn't find them annoying" as some here seem to be saying does not answer that. We're allowed to ask specific people not to come to our talk pages, surely there should be some way to ask that specific boilerplate notices not come to our talk pages? --GRuban (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @Mandruss: Atsme wants to be able to put up a straightforward "no soliciting" sign once, and leave it up, rather than have to post messages on her own talk page at regular intervals. Even if that weren't a rather non-obvious way to go about things (I have to notify myself? Repeatedly?) there is a difference between being able to opt out once, and many times. Though as Thryduulf writes, I admit asking for sanctions for well intentioned missing of the notice seem to be a bit far; if someone is intentionally using whatever for harassment, we don't need to itemize all the possible ways. --GRuban (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000
Just 2.1 weeks back, ATSME complained about a DS warning on her page attacking two editors for actionable harassment, one correctly following procedure and one (me) defending the editor after the attack.. There was no DS alert in the previous 12 months. Somehow the editor leaving the alert was supposed to know there was a recent appeal by ATSME. I then received an odd (but polite) notice on my TP that I was incorrect in defending the editor for following procedure. 

I leave a fair number of DS alerts. I search history (which can be very long) and the 602 log. Am I now supposed to also search the editor TP to see if they demand that I don’t leave a DS alert? (ATSME’s TP is now 35,377 bytes.) Further, if a DS alert isn't left annually, how is the next person to know not to leave another without an entry in the log?

A rare extra DS alert, which are now politely stated, is nothing compared to the SPAM I receive every day (hour). Just say thanks or remove it. The notice at the top of ATSME’s page telling editors not to post DS alerts is inappropriate. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – It’s much easier to search the 602 log (one click from the warning when you post an alert) than the UTP, and the log should always work if a previous alert was properly issued. And if it wasn’t properly issued, another should probably be issued anywho. I’d suggest removing the requirement to search the UTP history before posting an alert. O3000 (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please AGF. Most of the alerts I post are for newcomers to the ugly areas when it looks as though they are likely to violate, as a prophylactic. The alerts exist for a reason; and that reason is not to set some sort of trap. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with adding a DS aware notice on a UTP is instruction creep. There are users that don’t want other things posted on their UTPs, like humor, images, birthday notices. It’s fine to have options to control some bots. But, let’s not end up with a set of custom rules by UTP that an editor must read before posting. O3000 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am not conflating anything. I’m OK with the current process. O3000 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I am not sure what we are doing here. NO ONE needs more bureaucracy in this area. A DS template is just that--a notification. If someone wants to see that as a slap on the wrist, I suppose that's up to them, but we shouldn't discourage notifying editors who might get in trouble. If I have to search by way of filters or what not before I can drop a DS template (usually, in my case, I think they're BLP templates), that's just yet another little hoop. I am sorry if Atsme got hurt in January (?), or if a DS template is triggering, but all this is already complicated enough. And wile we are on the topic, I am having a hard time figuring this out because I'm also hearing that someone got upset at an edit summary last week, and that people were elated when Bill Gates delivered a computer to their place of work, or something like that. Which reminds me that Atsme's topic ban (former topic ban?) was issued in part because of that kind of chatter on talk pages, was it not? Drmies (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment to BU Rob13 by Bishonen
I don't know about the "fact" that admins have been taken to task for leaving a DS notice, since you're worried about that. It's only a fact that Atsme has stated that "Admins have been taken to task for it from time to time". Please supply diffs, Atsme. "Taken to task" sounds like something imposed from above, i. e. taken to task by arbcom. Really? Bishonen &#124; talk 09:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC).

Comment from SN
I don't think this has been mentioned yet (?), but using User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb—link—to place DS alerts searches for a previous alert within the first year automatically, so you don't have to do it yourself (the script is able to automate the procedure for checking that a user has previously been notified of sanctions. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course you can; to err, after all, is human. In other words, you are. Cheers! ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WBG
Seems like a solution in search of a problem. I, for one, check the EF hits (that can be easily accessed from the banner that automatically pops up, once you try to save the page for the first time with the template) to detect whether the user has been served with the same DS notice in the last year and accordingly proceed with issuing the notice. Also, in case of redundant issuings of notices, we need to assume good faith. &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 14:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
1. IIRC, ARBCOM recently ruled that you can't use that anymore, but I can be mistaken.

2. I'm not exactly sure what the issue is. As it's written now, if you give yourself an alert every twelve months, you are covered by this:
 * In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or and when someone tries to give you a DS notice, the edit filter will catch it. All you have to do is just renew that every twelve months on your own talk page. I don't think we should add another rule or layer of bureaucracy. If you want to add something to the top of your talk page, then do so,and add a notify alert to yourself to renew the alert within twelve months so you can renew the alert. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Masem
I generally agree that having to deal with repeated notices can be a pain, but also just wanted to add that we have many bots that frequently drop user-talk messages and which recognize opt-out messages linked on the user's talk page. We treat those opt-outs that the user is well aware that any result from not recieving new notices is wholly their responsibility (eg image deletion).

If we were to have "DS message bot", in which DSes can only be placed by the bot by a request of an admin, that bot can check for such opt-outs. But how often does this situation come up? I'm just brainstomring here in case the community goes in that direction. --M asem (t) 19:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO
I wonder how many people who have issued DS "reminders" can honestly state that each and every time they have done this was just to provide a "friendly reminder". As part of AE enforcements one of the first steps to get a sanction placed against a editing foe is to make sure they first get a DS "friendly reminder".--MONGO (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss above alludes that his comment at Atsme talkpage was "constructive criticism" and I assume he meant this criticism (and almost immediately removed here) that I personally would label as harassment and bullying, particularly in the specific timeframe Mandruss posted it. I personally do not find the following passage to be "constructive criticism: "''I forget whether I'm welcome here or not. After this comment, probably not, as there is a high correlation between support and welcome on this page. According to the page history, the previous AP2 DS alert expired in July 2018. There is no requirement to be aware of, let alone observe, a notice at the top of the UTP. That notice is not a substitute for the page history entries that editors are instructed to check before issuing an alert. I issued my currently-active AP2 DS alert to myself, just to save others the trouble. If you don't like receiving them from others, Atsme, you might consider doing the same in the future.''" I mean, if one isn't clear if they are even welcome at a talkpage, why badger that person at all? Yes, as Mandruss admits himself the last DS warning in that topic area was indeed less than a year ago and for petes sake, Atsme was sanctioned since then so I mean, it's obvious they are aware of the DS on that topic you think? The last sentence Mandruss offers makes a little sense, maybe, but why the hell are we going to place DS tags on our own pages just to avoid someone else doing it for us? For the record, my placement of a DS "friendly reminder" on my own talkpage was directly due to demonstrating the folly of such a notion.--MONGO (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
The whole process of alerted editors to DS is overly bureaucratic for the sake of bureaucracy, especially because there's more ways than just the talk page notice to show editors are aware. Take this one, for example - "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement." Now back in February 2019, both myself and commented in an AE case in the AmPol topic area. But you may notice on my talk page that O3000 gave me the annual refresher 2 months later in April 2019. I'm technically also permanently aware, as I've been sanctioned (but since successfully appealed) in that topic area before. Is it reasonable to expect editors to check AE comment histories or logs to confirm that editors are aware? I don't think so, but it did annoy me somewhat to be given another notice, especially since I'd have a very similar discussion (see here) still visible on my talk page. I'm not sure what to do about it, if Arbcom insists that all the awareness criteria should remain. These talk page notices should really only be given to new or inexperienced editors. Everyone else is surely aware that misbehavior (real or perceived) gets you in trouble. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley
A suggestion for something that (I think) would be pretty straightforward to implement.

We currently have Special:AbuseFilter/602 that detects if somebody is trying to add DS/Alert to a page and gives them the following warning: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS

It shouldn't be too difficult to modify that edit filter to also detect a self-awareness template or category on the same user talk page.


 * Steps needed to make this happen:
 * 1) Somebody create DS/Aware that editors can put at the top of their talk page to indicate that they are aware of sanctions. The syntax should include a field for the topic area, and maybe an option to hide the template. Example:  The template could also place hidden categories on the talk page like.
 * 2) Modify Special:AbuseFilter/602 MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS to detect if the awareness template appears on the page, and if it does display a message that the user is already aware of the sanctions. have the edit filter prevent the addition of DS/Alert. Also have the edit filter create log entries for when users add or remove DS/Aware from their talk pages.
 * 3) Arbcom adds "* The editor has placed a DS/Aware template for the area of conflict on their own talk page, or has removed the template within the last 12 months" to the list of items under "An editor is considered aware if:"
 * 4) Forget the garbage proposal about punishing editors who leave DS Alerts for editors who are self-aware (moot anyway if the edit filter blocks the edit).

I imagine this would take a couple of hours for somebody with the technical know-how, and I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of people opt in. The current system of manual annual alerts for each topic area is annoying.

~Awilley (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging Arbs who have already commented:
 * I suspect you haven't yet taken the time to have not yet read deep enough into the "Statements" to see my alternate proposal above. I don't blame you...you have a lot of reading to do, and I commented after some of you had already written your statements.
 * Reading what you have written I would summarize your current position as "Yeah, DS Alerts are mildly annoying, but the proposed solution makes things as annoying or more annoying by adding more hassle for people doing the perfectly acceptable work of placing alert templates. I'm open to other solutions that are less annoying and that don't create more work." I believe my proposal is just that. It's less annoying for the people who don't like getting templated every year (they no longer receive templates) and it's less annoying for the people placing the templates (they no longer have to search through the edit filter logs to try and determine whether the user is aware, since the automatic warning template would now explicitly say "This user is aware of the sanctions for the following topic areas: foo bar baz")
 * User:Galobtter has been kind enough to demonstrate that this will indeed work. You can check yourself: Navigate to User:Galobtter/sandbox3, edit the page, add the words "Testing of Ds/aware abusefilter", then hit "save".
 * In conclusion, the only thing you (Arbs) need to do is #3. Others (see also JFG below) are already willing to do the rest of the work required to implement this. ~Awilley (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: "complicating the issuance of DS alerts in any way would be the step backwards." I agree. I think my proposal is a step in the direction of simplifying things. See the following table


 * In summary, it doesn't make things any more complicated for templating users who have not opted out, and it makes things much more simple for users who have. ~Awilley (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the follow up. I personally haven't done anything on this since May. I figured we were waiting for a go-ahead from you before modifying any templates. I'm currently on vacation with limited time, but between me, User:JFG, and User:Galobtter I'm probably the least essential. In any case I think a mockup shouldn't be too difficult to produce now that Galobtter has shown that it is technically possible. ~Awilley (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by QEDK
The current system is just fine, instead of making a DS notice to be a big deal, we just need to destigmatize the notice. I oppose any proposal of pressing a button to inform an editor, it should be compulsory for an editor to do their due diligence. If it's absolutely necessary, we might as well shift the responsibility to bots, to inform editors whose edits meet a certain condition (bytes/number of edits) and log DS notices and get it off our hands entirely, instead of a half-hearted attempt to automate part of the process, then this finger-pointing with notices can finally stop. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 15:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JFG
As a "regular" in the AP2 DS domain, I have had my fair share of giving and receiving DS alerts. In several instances when I received one, I got the uneasy feeling that "somebody wants to stir drama now". Sometimes I ask for clarification from the alert dispenser, to check whether any recent editing of mine prompted their action. I consider myself as having a pretty thick skin, and yet I sometimes feel attacked, so I understand that or other editors may feel threatened by such alerts, especially when it's obvious that they are editing regularly in a DS area, and they would be aware of the process. The feeling may be even stronger after an editor recently went through an AE case, irrespective of the outcome. I have unfortunately seen alerts being handed out as an intimidation tactic, despite the best efforts of alert drafters in making them less threatening now than they originally sounded. In the spirit of WP:DTR, I think that editors should be able to opt out of receiving such alerts, being understood that they cannot then defend themselves in an AE case by claiming ignorance.

As a practical step, I fully support 's proposal of a standard DS/Aware message that could be placed on one's user talk page, and would be checked by relevant bots and edit filters. People trying to place an alert would be themselves notified that "this user already knows about DS in this area", thus saving both editors some time and mental effort. Should the Committee support this change, I would volunteer to help craft and test the appropriate technicalities.

Finally, I join other commenters in rejecting any automatic boomerang effect on editors who place DS notices despite an "I'm aware" message. Such behaviour, if deemed objectionable, would be assessed in the normal course of an AE proceeding. — JFG talk 06:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion by below.  Would that work well? Contrary to Fæ, I'd still support making the DS/Aware template visible. Telling people "I'm already aware" is a simplifying step. — JFG talk 07:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with some other posters: we don't need a long protracted discussion here. Can Arbcom just decide in principle whether users can opt out of DS alerts in topic areas of their choosing? Then these users cannot mount an "I wasn't aware" defense at AE. There is demonstrated demand for this simplification, and it is likely to reduce drama whenever alerts are perceived as threats (irrespective of whether such perceptions are justified). The community will sort out the technicalities. — JFG talk 06:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm largely off-wiki this week. Would be happy to work further on the draft technical solution and template wording if that's what you feel the committee needs in order to reach a decision. I feel the committee could usefully rule on principle only, but that's just me. — JFG talk 06:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for completing the technical part of the job. The amendment is ready to pass now. — JFG talk 12:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Goldenshimmer
Just dropping in to say... I've studiously avoided learning about the various topic-area editing restrictions so far. So, I would appreciate getting a notice on my talk telling me I need to start thinking about them so I can adjust my behavior accordingly, if anyone thinks I do (rather than getting whacked with a sanction without warning). (I mostly do smallish, infrequent edits, and I guess no one's felt they needed to give me a notice so far.) So, please don't replace it with "you're expected to read the talk page before any edit to see if there's a sanction notice" or similar pitfalls for the unwary. All that said, a way for people to opt out if they don't want the messages doesn't sound like a bad idea. Thanks! (I hope I commented here correctly, and am supposed to; feel free to move/delete this if you want.) —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 18:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and harassment is totally unacceptable, of course, whatever medium is used for it, although hopefully this doesn't need mentioning... —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 18:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify the purpose of the above: My comment was mostly intended as something for future authors/implementers of alternate proposals to bear in mind, such as in the actioning of the suggestion to "open up a community call for ideas" (—, WP:ARCA); as well as just to share my appreciation for the positive aspects of the current system, which didn't seem to have been voiced elsewhere. I was aware that this proposal as written would be dependent on a talk page header, and have no issue with it; I wasn't trying to argue against what was being proposed. Sorry this wasn't clearer! —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 00:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
I don't have a strong opinion about this specific proposal, but I do about the bigger picture. ArbCom introduced discretionary sanctions in 2007 as a way of dealing with ongoing problems in our most contentious articles and topic-areas. Because the editing rules for pages covered by DS may be very different from the usual rules, and violations may be sanctioned more quickly or more severely, since the inception of DS there has been a requirement that editors be warned that the rules exist before they can be sanctioned under them. This is matter of basic fairness, to ensure that editors are not sanctioned for breaking a rule that they didn't know existed, and would have complied with had they known.

From this common-sense origin of the "warn before sanctioning" requirement, over the past 12 years there has developed an increasingly complicated and arcane set of procedural rules for DS warnings and notifications. This accompanies the increasing complexity of the actual discretionary sanctions themselves in the various topic-areas (including but not limited to the uniquely complicated rules for the Israel-Palestine and American politics areas). Each incremental step along this path has been well-intentioned, but the cumulative effect is that we may have created a morass of complexity that is increasingly difficult to understand. I myself don't understand all the rules at this point; and if I don't, given that I've spent more of my wikilife on the arbitration pages than any other editor, I'm not sure what chance anyone else has.

I don't have any specific changes to propose, and my intention is to finish stepping away from the arbitration pages (a process which this posting suggests I'm not all that good at), but in the interim I would urge caution before taking any step that might make matters even more complicated than they already are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fæ
Rather than a big visible notice that would itself be annoying for users who find DS alerts annoying, it would be entirely possible to use an invisible process to achieve the same result.

The current system relies on edit filter 602 picking up an attempted edit matching the alert template text. Technically there is nothing to stop extending that filter to pick up on matches to an otherwise invisible template being added to the users talk page by themselves. This can then create a log entry showing that the user has elected to log that they are aware of DS applying to any topic(s) they are interested in.

Under current procedures for DS alerts, this then avoids any further notices for the next 12 months for that topic.

--Fæ (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

makes sensible remarks with respect to implementation, however I believe it wise for Arbcom to make a decision on the principle alone, without resolving specifics about what is technically reasonable, best or possible. For example, rather than discussing a clarification about notice templates and the edit filter, the clarification here should be focused on whether a user should be able to flag themselves as being aware of DS on given topics, and then be considered opted out of alerts. However that is then technically implemented is downstream, whether by self-added templates, self alerting, a request page/list or something else, and does not need to be resolved here through Arbcom motions, as usability and practicality is better done via community consensus. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter
Users can already alert themselves with Ds/alert, and has suggested doing that above. The presumable benefit to a change here is having a notice that works permanently, i.e without notifications every 12 months for multiple topic areas. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything technical has been done. See Template:Ds/aware for the mockup (which calls Module:Ds/aware).

So the remaining steps are
 * 1) Arbcom passes a motion to add "The editor has placed the Ds/aware template for the area of conflict on their own talk page, or has removed the template within the last 12 months", per Awilley's wording, to WP:AC/DS
 * 2) Modify MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS to add , which will show a message if a person has Ds/aware on their talk page, along with the topic areas they have indicated awareness of

And then people will be able to use Ds/aware.

As a sidenote, in the interests of not ever-increasing the complexities of WP:AC/DS, I personally would suggest axing the "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement" criterion. That one is almost never applicable in my experience, because anyone active enough to participate in ARCAs and AEs has very likely been active enough in the topic area to have received an alert - that criterion just adds complexity, and is an absolute pain to search for. Although that could probably be a separate ARCA. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Od Mishehu
Since a number of users are suggesting that we use the edit filter to disallow DS warnings under certain conditions, I think I should clarify on some technical issues:


 * 1) The filter can only check the wikitext of the one page, not the UP of the UTP's owner, not an edit notice, not a transcluded "header" page.
 * 2) The filter can only access the current version of the page.
 * 3) As far as I know, there is no way to get the flag from the current DS warning and use this flag to check other text on the page. It is possible to explicitly write a test for each existing DS, but maintaining this would require new manual work on the filter each time a new DS is imposed.
 * 4) If a user is aware of multiple DS topics, he should be able to handle this with multiple parameters to a single template instance. The edit filter could be given an appropriate regular expression for each DS, but maintaining the filter would become extremely difficult.

Statement by MJL
I disagree. I've not once received an alert (nor would I particularly like to tbh) and have participated in the areas of AE and ARCA. I'd prefer we keep that bit in there or at least have a separate discussion about it another time. Either way, it looks like User talk:MJL/Editnotice will need an update... &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

DS Awareness and alerts: Clerk notes

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



DS Awareness and alerts: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * One already can see if someone has received a recent DS alert by searching edits on the user talk page for the "discretionary sanctions alert" tag, so the technical recommendation to somehow add a log is not needed. (Tags would be the only way of doing this sort of thing, given the realities of the MediaWiki software.) I'm not super hot on this idea because I worry that it will only encourage the view that leaving a DS notice is a negative thing. It is not. If you've been contributing positively in a contentious area and I noticed you haven't gotten a DS notice, I would still leave one, since it would be helpful for positive editors to be aware of the sanctions so they can go to AE and seek sanctions against others if needed. The fact that admins have been "taken to task" for leaving a DS notice for an editor is the real problem here, in my opinion, not the leaving of the notices. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "View history" --> "Filter revisions" --> type in "discretionary sanctions alert" to the tag filter. You get this. This is the same filter you're linked to by an edit-filter-generated warning when you try to place a discretionary sanction alert, so it isn't hard to find. I don't see any danger of editors not being able to find if someone has been made aware in the last year. Your proposal originally sounded like it was more targeted at getting rid of the awareness requirement for editors who don't want to receive DS notices every year on certain topics. That is why I responded basically saying I think that attitude – that DS notices should be avoided, and editors who give them out to good-faith contributors reprimanded – is the real problem. Is that not what you were saying? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 12:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have diffs or remember details, but I've personally seen this a couple times where people get upset about getting a DS notice and then the community makes comments about how the person who gave it did so in a POINTy fashion or should be trouted. Nothing serious, "taken to task" is maybe a bit strong, but I do get the gist of what Atsme is saying based on past experiences. I can't for the life of me remember the editors involved, so I have no way to really find diffs of it myself, unfortunately. Perhaps Atsme has a better memory or more recent example. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 11:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What Floq said. Yes, the DS notices are mildly annoying. So are long coffee shop lines, red lights, late trains, weeds in the garden, cats who always choose to play with the only toy that makes any noise (gee, thanks, sis, what a nice gift that was...), meetings that could have been emails, slow internet connections, balky printers.... normal life just unavoidably involves some mildly annoying things. "Normal life" in an online community is going to involve a little bit of annoying social friction. Remove the notice, give the cat a quieter toy, and don't waste any more mental energy on it. I'm getting my sister's cat a toy that makes noise and has flashy lights. Note: this strategy not recommended for DS notices. . Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is one of those things where I'm tempted to overgeneralize - it wouldn't annoy me, so why should it annoy someone else? On the other hand, I got Awilley's ping and the phrase "you haven't yet taken the time..." gave me an instinctive "harrumph!" reaction for no particular reason except maybe that someone annoying I used to know liked to say "please take the time to [do annoying thing]" - so fine, annoyance can be irrational and subjective :) I have no objection to a technical solution if someone wants to, ahem, take the time to do that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I didn't mean you should have to edit! You were right, I hadn't read it :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If something is annoying, and there is a reasonably easy way to stop the annoyance then I'm in favour of stopping the annoyance. To take OR's point about the everyday annoyances - yes, give the cat a quieter toy, introduce fast growing ground cover to prevent weeds appearing, brew coffee at home and take it in a flask or insulated drinking cup - you'll save time and money (and have a much wider choice of coffee beans). As for this particular solution - well, it seems to involve someone else doing something that could be equally as or maybe even more annoying. So I take the point that being DS spammed is annoying, but the proposed solution appears to be equally annoying. If there is a workable solution, such as a bot that automatically removes DS notices from pages which have a no-DS notices template, then I would support that. SilkTork (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - having to read the notices at the top of someone's talkpage to see if they object to having a DS notice could be annoying. SilkTork (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If User:Awilley's proposal could be worked such that it required no further bureaucracy (ie, no changing of existing ArbCom wording or procedures) then I would have no objection to see it further discussed. My personal preference in this is that users in good standing who are clearly experienced and have made positive contributions to an article under DS, shouldn't get templated. But if that is the price to pay to keep contentious articles stable, then so be it. We are here to serve the project, not have the project serve us. SilkTork (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion has stalled, but I don't think it should be closed until we've had a chance to look more closely at Awilley's proposal. User:Awilley - what progress has been made on your idea? Are we at the stage where the Committee can look at it and vote on it, or does it require more work? What I think we'd like to see is a working template with the appropriate wording so we can vote and sign off on it if appropriate, rather than sign off on the idea of it, and then have to look at it again when it has been completed and re-vote. SilkTork (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Awilley - ping me when you have it done. SilkTork (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:JFG - yes, the Committee could, but there may be unforeseen issues with the finished template which might create concern and a new clarification request raised which then sits here for a month or more. Better to have any potential concerns addressed here and now. Thanks for agreeing to do this. SilkTork (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of this ARCA, I am totally open to a less annoying solution. It does not seem like we have a consensus on what that might be, so perhaps the next best step would be to close this ARCA and open up a community call for ideas. Should one or a few idea emerge with a lot of support, then it could be brought back here for a review and implementation discussion. Any editor who uses DS notices to harass another editor could be sanctioned already under our harassment policies. I do not see us needing to codify that further into the DS policy. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As a community, we're prone to making changes that narrowly make sense but broadly are a step backwards. I get the thinking: why not let one opt out of the protections at WP:ACDS?  Nevertheless, complicating the issuance of DS alerts in any way would be the step backwards.  We should think of DS alerts like traffic signs: advertising a change in 'rules of the road' and putting everyone on an equal footing.  I think we are asking for more wikilawyering and harm if we change DS alerts – issuing one and receiving one – into anything more.  By introducing the possibility of talk page notices (that one is "perpetually in receipt of alerts"), we give everyone involved a further factor to weigh up.  Their focus should really be "is Wikipedia is putting up a good article?"  We ought to remember that DS is a system for rescuing disorderly articles from calamity.  Anything that frustrates that objective should be avoided wherever possible; I think the language that already governs alerts strikes the right balance.  Close without action.   AGK  &#9632;  21:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The logic of "DS alerts" is to ensure that people are aware they could be sanctioned for editing in certain areas, because it would be unfair to sanction someone who doesn't know that DS exists in the area they're editing in. Ok, that's a reasonable courtesy. But what started as a courtesy has evolved into a bureaucratic system requiring a yearly re-issuing of the alert, even for editors consistently active in those areas, just in case they get amnesia after knowing about the DS scheme for 365 days. They're no longer (if they were ever) seen as a courtesy, they're seen as a warning. Nobody likes getting them no matter how we re-word them, and they prompt frequent accusations of harassment or retaliatory alert-placing.Given all that, if we let people declare they're aware, I think it has the potential to save a lot of drama and bureaucracy. Once someone opts-in, nobody needs to place an alert at them, they no longer need to get alerts they're well aware of, and nobody needs to argue over alerts being placed. I really don't see the drawback of letting someone essentially opt in to knowing about DS. After all, declaring awareness means opting in to potentially being sanctioned; it's not like there's a strategic upside. I'm personally all for it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I really don't see it as a complication. How is it extra complicated to let someone "opt in" or "declare awareness" or whatever you want to call it, as long as it prompts the same kind of edit notice or error message that trying to re-template someone does now? Saves the effort of making sure they're DS alerted and lets you move right on to taking them to AE, if that's what you're after (and let's be real here, I really don't think anyone is out here issuing DS alerts as a friendly reminder between pals, no matter how often we try to pretend otherwise). You say let them stop being annoyed so easily, neither alternative too much to ask of a grown-ass man or woman, but it feels like we could ask the same of you here. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to a user being able to mark themselves as "alerted" in a specific topic area. My only concern would be if this would require people to expend significantly more effort to determine if that user is alerted in that topic area (for example, if they had to dig through talk page history to find it). However, based on Galobtter's comment it seems that this could fairly easily be added to the Abusefilter-warning-DS warning, so that satisfies my concern. As for sanctioning editors who place a DS alert on an already-alerted editor's page, I would oppose that. If a user is hounding other editors by placing repeated alerts, that can be addressed without any modification of existing policy. I would rather default to assuming good faith, that the editor simply missed that an alert was made, rather than default to believing a user was intentionally re-alerting someone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions: Awareness and alerts: Motion
The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

Enacted - GoldenRing (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) SilkTork (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Hopefully I was clear above when this request was first filed with the committee.  Any expanding of The Rules should be reluctant, careful, and slow.  Giving people an opt-out seems unnecessary and I think it may open up more edge cases at AE.  However, I also recognise that if editors want to dispense with the entire Awareness thing – as that both favours and disadvantages them – then they should be entitled to easily do so.  I do need to say this: each year, ArbCom gets bolder in its willingness to expand (and complicate) the terms of DS.  This is not helpful.  Looking at the DS document, it is increasingly plain that the thing was written by committee.  The more that happens, the less – I believe that the system does its core job of protecting the encyclopedia when editors fail to toe the line.  Alerted should look at the system's terms and quickly grasp that "Okay, if I am not careful, I will be booted out.  Got it."  Can anyone honestly say the motion above will make our articles more stable and better in quality?  I am OK with this change but it needs to be the last one.  AGK  &#9632;  13:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Sure, for reasons I outlined above. If we're going to have a bureaucratic requirement that someone must be "aware" in a formal sense before it's possible to sanction them, there is no downside to letting people cut through and choose to be formally aware. Like AGK, I don't love the sprawling bureaucratic complexity of the DS system, but I'm going to be optimistic and imagine this change will indirectly help make articles more stable by reducing the amount of time spent determining awareness and warning people about systems they've known about for years. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) This seems reasonable, iff it can be added to the list of things that make a user show up as "alerted" in the automated checks provided by the warning notice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Courcelles (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with AGK about the expanding bureaucracy to fulfill the needs of the bureaucracy. But for the time being, this works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Inactive


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * Example of the template in use: User_talk:SilkTork/Editnotice. SilkTork (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Resignation from the Arbitration Committee
Just posting here to link to the note I left on my talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

DS topics
Exactly what particular discretionary sanctions are authorized? Or do you mean that the admin in charge of that article/page can invoke any sanction that they feel like imposing?Oldperson (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is in response to some other discussion, but you can find a list of topic areas where discretionary sanctions have been authorized at WP:DSTOPICS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare Thanks, I just noticed that TERF was not on the listOldperson (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed as a part of the GamerGate case. This supersedes sanctions which were authorized for pages dealing with transgender issues as part of Sexology and Manning naming dispute. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As described at, Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. So yes, they are given the discretion to devise an appropriate sanction, for the topics on the list referenced above. isaacl (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The “authorization” of Discretionary Sanctions is dubious. It was very close to a small number of admins giving themselves authority to give themselves authority to give chilling warnings and extensive powers in relation to controversial but otherwise arbitrary content. Arguably necessarily, arguably a slippery slope to a police state. The inability of anyone to give a simple correct answer to the OP is a clue. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For background on how this may have arisen, please see the conversation subsequent to my placing a Ds/Alert notice at User:Oldperson's Talk page. After a few responses, I became less sure of my answer and came here.  See User talk:Oldperson. Because of that, I opened my own section below, and got an edit conflict. See next section. Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * What hasn't been answered? Discretionary sanctions can only be authorized in topic areas by the Arbitration Committee (either as a part of a case, or by motion). After they have been authorized, if there is disruption in a topic area covered by these sanctions, administrators can implement (and non-administrators can request administrators implement) page restrictions, bans, restrictions, etc. as needed to try to control the conflicts. If there is some question over whether a page falls under a topic area in which discretionary sanctions are authorized, a discussion at WP:AE or, if necessary, WP:ARCA would be the logical next step. As for TERF specifically, my opinion is that it's about as textbook of a "gender-related dispute or controversy" as it gets, and is therefore is subject to discretionary sanctions per the authorization in GamerGate. To elaborate a bit on the question below, there isn't really much in the way of guidance on who can and can't place that template. I see it as quite similar to the ds/alert templates: there is no actual restriction that goes into effect when the template is added, but it's rather there just to notify people of the fact that the article is a part of a contentious topic area, and that people should familiarize themselves with the conflict history at the page. I think if the template is placed at a page where other editors feel it does not apply, it would be reasonable to bring it to WP:AE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * A clue to a lack of direct answer is the use of passive tense.
 * Who authorised? Who authorised the authoriser. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee did the authorizing, and the community authorized the committee by ratifying the arbitration policy. Now, if you want to ask who authorized the community, you'll have to take that to someone else. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The original question was Exactly what particular discretionary sanctions are authorized?—what, not who. isaacl (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The Arbitration Committee authorized discretionary sanctions in that topic area, as with all discretionary sanctions. Perhaps I used imperfect grammar, but I don't see how it's unclear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The passive tense is always prone to misunderstanding, or misimplication. The question was written in the passive tense too. Ideally, WP:DSTOPICS would include a direct link to the authorisation.  Ideally, the link would be to something more explanatory than this. I had confused DS with GS.  I find the authorisation of GSs to be dubious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding a better explanation, I think it'd be a great idea to have something like a "Wikipedia:Five-minute guide to discretionary sanctions" explainer. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Sanctions is not bad. WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions is not bad. WP:General_sanctions is unsatisfying. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The original question is in the form "What X is Y?", which I don't think is passive. It's asking for a list of X's that have the property Y. isaacl (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and while they're (hopefully) creating an explainer, maybe they could create an accompanying template with suggested boilerplate to use for sanctions.page, possibly stolen from here, or else just have a section of copy-pastable text right in the explanation. Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Who can place Talk page notices of ACDS page restrictions and when
I'm requesting a clarification of the guideline or policy (if any) regarding which articles fall under discretionary sanctions after a ruling is issued, and about who can place notices of page restrictions for articles that do fall under sanctions, and under what conditions.

This question is prompted by the warning notice currently at the top of Talk:TERF, which currently warns of active arbitration remedies and a WP:1RR page restriction. This warning was placed in good faith by (non-admin) in this edit on June 10, 2019, with the edit summary "copy from Talk:Gamergate controversy". There was no follow-up on the Talk page regarding placement of this warning afaik.

The wikicode was apparently taken from this edit (a hand-written tmbox) at Talk:Gamergate controversy  by admin  January 29, 2015 with summary tidy templates, note DS, 1RR. HJ Mitchell followed that edit by adding a new Talk page section two minutes later entitled "1RR" (diff, permalink) announcing the "newly authorised discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBGG".

The TERF article has had significant gender-related controversy and seems as ripe as any article in the area of gender-related articles on Wikipedia for such sanctions to be announced and applied. However, it wasn't named in the WP:ARBGG page (which didn't exist at the outset, and wasn't added by amendment) so, who gets to do so? In the general case, whether gg-related or wrt to some other sanction, who decides that the article falls under a given sanction? Who should or may place an arbitration warning? Is there a template with some boilerplate text available for this, or must the warning be hand-crafted or copied from somewhere else each time? Is an accompanying Talk page section announcing such placement required or recommended? Can anyone place them, or only an Admin? And perhaps most importantly, how does one determine if a particular page falls under an existing sanctions topic area, or not? The Gamergate controversy page clearly falls under WP:ARBGG, because it's named there. I would think that TERF does, as well, but who decides? Is it all to fall under consensus at the article Talk page itself? That would seem to beg the original question. Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I got an edit conflict, and this question may somewhat duplicate the topic above by User:Oldperson. It was, in fact, in attempting to respond to Oldperson's questions at their Talk page wrt to the Ds/Alert notice I left there, that this topic came up. So perhaps these two sections should be merged. Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See for answers on who can place notices on pages that fall under discretionary sanctions (anyone), who can alert editors (anyone), and how editor alerts should be placed (specific template).  has more details for page-specific sanctions that an administrator has imposed. As for deciding if a page falls under the scope of discretionary sanctions, as with everything else in Wikipedia, if it is contested, the interested participants should have a discussion. If it can't be resolved within the community, a request for clarification from the arbitration committee can be made. isaacl (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks; I was aware of the first part (placing editor alerts). Thanks for the link clarifying the second part, which appears to say that only an admin may place a page alert, such as this one at Gamergate. If I'm interpreting things correctly, that implies that this one, placed by a non-admin, was placed improperly. Since I don't think it's controversial, however, I don't see a need to reverse it, but an endorsement in a new section at Talk:TERF by an admin, similar to the "1RR section" added by H B Mitchell, might not be a bad idea. Mathglot (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , in this case the TERF page was placed under 1RR and extended-confirmed protection by when they created the edit notice here, and confirmed it with a post to the talk page here. Placing the template at the top of the page was just housekeeping, and not improper. –  bradv  🍁  02:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Administrators imposing a sanction related to a specific page have the responsibility to place appropriate notifications regarding the sanctions, and so the instructions are worded that way. If they forgot one of the required steps, it doesn't mean the sanction no longer exists, though it can mean that editors may reasonably argue they were not aware of the sanction. isaacl (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's important to distinguish between a sanction and a notice. Page sanctions (1RR, protection, etc.) may only be placed by administrators, but as far as I'm aware there is no restriction on who may place a notice that a page falls under a topic area where discretionary sanctions have been authorized. Notices are nothing more than informational, and placing one does not authorize additional sanctions—it just informs people that DS covers the topic area already. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Modified my wording per NewsAndEventsGuy's comments below—they are correct that the word "alert" should be used more carefully. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Aha, I was searching page history for the sanctions notice that appears on the Talk page and assumed that was the decisive factor, and not anything related to the article page. After all, you don't have to be an admin to place an edit notice. The process and recommended steps (if any) do seem all rather hand-wavy, though, don't they?  One really doesn't know where to search to see what has been done, and by whom, and where.  I'm not saying that the process needs to be specified within an inch of its life, but one shouldn't have to run down several different paths to find out what's what, either. Kevin's suggestion in the discussion above is a good one. Things like How to do a move, a merge, an Afd, an Rfc and so on, all do a good job of codifying the process, with a how-to listing of recommended steps, what text to use, right down to suggested edit summaries in some cases. That's all very helpful, and takes out the guesswork. Surely we could have an WP:ACDS/How-to as well? Otherwise, it's a free-for-all, or these questions will just get repeated. Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. The fact that you said, "but as far as I'm aware there is no restriction on who may place an alert that a page falls under a topic area where discretionary sanctions have been authorized" (emphasis on the "as far as I'm aware") says to me that even as an admin, you're not 100% slam-dunk sure, and there (apparently) isn't an easy way to just look it up; WP:ACDS/How-to would fix that. Can somebody volunteer? Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like the thing to do would be to clarify WP:AC/DS, rather than split out information that doesn't exist there to a separate page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Article talk page notice is not an "Alert" Re, above GorillaWarfare described the talk page notice as an "alert" saying, ("there is no restriction on who may place an alert that a page falls under a topic area where discretionary sanctions have been authorized." Technically, those talk page notices are not "alerts".  The ACDS fine print defines one and only one thing as an "alert"... this is the template placed on the users talk page using . As it says in the documentation for that template Special rules govern alerts.   The special rules are located here.  These article talk page notices are something else.... packaging, fluff, FYI.   Their existence (or absence) is irrelevant to the operation of ACDS proceedings.   You can seek enforcement of ACDS at WP:AE simply by showing the other ed had "awareness" that ACDS was in effect.  What qualifies for showing awareness is also defined in the procedure.  The talk page notice isn't even mentioned.  (Example, there is a section at Hurricane Sandy, which falls under WP:ARBCC even though there is no talk page notice.)  When the current ACDS procedure was hashed out a few years ago, we talked a lot about the talk page notice and the outcome was... they're nice, but completely irrelevant.  And since they don't matter beyond FYI, and are only really noticed by a tiny subset of editors who read the informational stuff in the first place, anyone can toss one around.   They are talk page notices.... please take care to use "alerts" for  and talk page notices as just a fluffy article talk page thingy.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are very correct—I shouldn't have used the word "alert" because of the implications as far as formal alerting and "awareness" is concerned. I've adjusted my comment accordingly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for clarification of expectations for ECP and/or logging of Discretionary Sanctions
I'm including both of these issues together because they are related

When ECP was granted to admins for general usage, it was done so under clear circumstances "to combat any form of disruption (such as vandalism, edit wars, etc.) on any topic, given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective". Since that time, some admins have been applying ECP for reasons outside those narrowly defined parameters: Some admins have applied ECP to user pages and user talk pages upon request from a user/to their own pages. Others have applied it despite other measures available or prior to trying lower levels of protection. Some have given vague reasons or even no reason whatsoever.

Examples of each from the past 45 days (not exhaustive)


 * User request:
 * Vague "Up Protection":
 * Reason outside authorized reasons/action as a first resort:
 * No reason at all:
 * "place is fucked":
 * Others have had ECP applied via discretionary sanctions without logging such actions, as required ((Direct link to log for easier access):

The question is, what do we do about admins that are abusing the limited role ECP is supposed to fill? Every application of ECP is one more instance where we chip away at "The Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". All unnecessary/vague ECPs degrade that goal even further. For those involving discretionary sanctions, Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions and list that consequences will follow. To date, I have not seen application of such consequences.

As such, I request the following:
 * 1) Explicitly prohibit ECP outside the defined criteria
 * 2) Specify that applications of ECP must include a valid rationale
 * 3) We either do away with such logging requirements or actively enforce them; right now, it appears to be haphazard at best. Multiple instances of failing to log such actions can and should result in desysoping as it obfuscates oversight.

Please discuss. Buffs (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , WP:ARBPIA4 is scheduled to start on 19 September. This should be covered during that case, in which you will be welcome to participate. – bradv  🍁  20:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The Arbitration Committee does not control site policy, and the community has since further adopted ECP in the protection policy for all matters where it is used outside of arbitration remedies. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the invite (and probably will participate), this extends well beyond WP:ARBPIA4 and, as such, probably should be separate. Buffs (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The logging requirement that is part of discretionary sanctions could be covered under the pending arbitration case. However the limits on the use of extended-confirmed protection, outside of discretionary sanctions, were authorized by the community and so is up to it to decide. A discussion at Village pump (policy) may be more suitable. isaacl (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of community consensus, ECP only exists under ArbCom acquiescence. As such, it should have a say if we're extending what they've extended to us...
 * Until August 12, 2016, 30/500 protection applied only in topic areas determined by the Arbitration Committee, which authorized its use on articles reasonably construed as belonging to the Arab-Israeli conflict; as an arbitration enforcement tool by motion or remedy; or as a result of community consensus. In February 2019, the community authorized uninvolved administrators to place pages reasonably construed as belonging to the India–Pakistan conflict under extended confirmed protection as part of a general sanctions regime.
 * I don't mind general community consensus quite frankly nor do I see a general problem with applications with discretionary sanctions, but it seems to me that based on history, this is not something that an Admin can/should do to just any page. There are clear, defined criteria and it doesn't seem like we're sticking to them. Buffs (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well to answer you question about what to do about an admin that you think is breaking policy: first talk to them and see if an explanation settles your concern, if you are at an impasse open a discussion at WP:AN for review. (Note: this is for the general non-arbcom-remedy related usages). —  xaosflux  Talk 20:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since desysoping is the listed remedy (something that can't be done by community consensus), it's already been denied at WP:ANI. Moreover, it's broader than that and not individual admins, but how ArbCom will approach such concerns and at what level will they even take someone up for desysop? Buffs (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, extended-confirmed protection was invented by an admin under the scope of discretionary sanctions as a protective measure to be used as an arbitration case remedy. The community proposed and authorized the creation of a user right to make it easier to manage, and then, independent of the arbitration committee, came up with rules for it to be applied in general. It's the same as any protective tool, such as a topic ban: the arbitration committee can use it as a remedy, but that doesn't mean all uses of it fall within the purview of the arbitration committee to regulate.
 * The Incidents noticeboard can be used to try to impose lower level sanctions, but true enough, if the misconduct is thought to be severe enough to warrant removal of administrative privileges, this can only be handled through an arbitration case. But the rules defining misconduct for non-arbitration related matters remain under the control of the community. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not my understanding based on WP:ECP. I'm hoping that someone from ArbCom can provide better clarification. Buffs (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See, from the first link in the text you quoted, for the background of the community-based policy for the use of extended-confirmed protection. (It links to a discussion saying that the original protective action was created by the arbitration committee for a specific case. Without digging into it further, I can't remember if it was the committee or an admin who came up with it first, but for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter.) isaacl (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for reversal of vanishing &/ ban by motion
I do not think this is appropriate for a case request and the attendant drama so I'll try it here instead. This request is two parts. Neither in my opinion require a case and may simply be done by motion. I really am trying to be sensitive here but I believe strongly that not examining the roots of this whole mess will be far more toxic to the community than allowing easy scrutiny.
 * 1) Per my comments and reasoning here please reverse the vanishing of Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr. I believe I have made a prima facie case that the vanishing was done expressly to avoid scrutiny. There is evidence that other, active, editors may be open to community or Arbcom sanction but it would be very difficult for the community to do should this account remain vanished. The delete/move of the account's talk page made this even more difficult so, regardless of the outcome, please put it back in its proper place. The intent of this is to allow the edits and behavior of those active editors which may have facilitated this mess to be examined. I believe these interactions may give some clue to the genesis of FRAMGATE and the vanishing will allow the editor in question to avoid scrutiny both by the community and any interested parties who may be unfamiliar with the arcana of Wikipedia. In particular subpages.
 * 2) Since there are now many issues relating to the user that is Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr I request that, regardless of the outcome of the unvanishing request, that the user be banned by motion. This will insure that she is unable to return to editing until the community/Arbcom are able to address the issues which have been raised. If she truly does not want to return then being banned will not be an issue.

I have purposely used much less detail than is customary because the vanished user is unlikely to speak in her own defense. I can recast the material I linked to specifically address the issues raised re this user upon request should you find the linked material and reasoning unpersuasive. Jbh Talk  21:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Paging a few arbitrators --  for their awareness of the presence of this request.  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No comment at all on this particular use. But if any user has left Wikipedia then I see little point in unvanishing them. If someone has left, they have left. As a courtesy we often blank case pages of users that have been site-banned. We are not about punishing people or humiliating those who have left, we are about preventing harm to Wikipedia. If any vanished user returns, then they can be unvanished, and at that point face scrutiny for any possible misdoings. SilkTork (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "punishing people or humiliating" it has to do with making it possible to easily explore the connections between this user and others and whether others have violated our policies. For instance both and  (For the uninitiated: that's, at the start of this, an arbitrator and a current member of T&S who for 'known reasons' can be assumed to reagurly speak to one another) were intimately familiar with with this editor before this fiasco. (See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket from 2011 It has been pretty well established that this editor was, to be generous, problematic. But they were shielded by parties who may have, at a minimum, violated out PaGs. This account is central to the whole APC editing scheme and while I can not prove if other's behaved/edited in a problematic manner, I have not really looked either. So long as the account remains vanished, the links broken and the talk page inaccessible (Unlinked and hidden as a subpage even under the vanished account name!) it is extremely difficult for anyone to assess if/how bad the APC project's editing behavior was. Something bad happened centering around the owner of this account. I firmly and resolutely believe that has been proven sufficiently to say that it is not in the interests of Wikipedia as a project or as a community for there to be this impediment to scrutiny. If we do not understand what really happened here; what potential motives there were for causing the upheaval of FRAMGATE; and who had a stake in it then the system is open to further similar abuse.  Simple. Wikipedia is about openness and accountability. Whether this person has left or not is immaterial. Beyond that her ermm... COI... means she is very unlikely to be completely disengaged from Wikipedia or the Foundation. In point of fact it is so unlikely I confidently say belief to the contrary is farcical.  Add: See  for some of my reasoning re investigating the issues as well as the practical constraints thereof.  Jbh  Talk  17:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Last edited: 17:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Jbhunley, I don't really see either of these two requests happening. Acting by motion is something that the committee should only do when it is certain of all the facts, or at least to the extent that it is reasonable to assume enough is known. In this case, that's not true at all - there are theories floating around, notably at an off-wiki forum, but this idea that we should be acting by motion doesn't match the level of knowledge that the community or indeed the committee has. Banning is something that Arbcom should only do in limited circumstances, and again, I don't see that what has happened here should require that. Effectively, you are suggesting that we should ban in lieu of questions being answered, which is not something that we do.  Overturning a RtV isn't really an Arbcom thing. I can imagine that the committee might pass a motion to do so in exceptional circumstances, but it would take a lot to persuade me - personally - to support it. When a person leaves wikipedia permenantly (for example, by vanishing) the committee will generally accept that as there is little more that we can do to with respect to the individual. If a case centres around them and they are not here any more, there's no point to a case.  Now, beyond those points - there are are questions to be answered (not necessarily through the committee). There are conflicts of interest at play which do not appear to have been declared, there is a plausibility of editing for pay, there are community norms that may have been breached. I've already stated that assuming our a case fits within our policies and procedures / our jurisdiction and scope then it should be raised. By that, I mean it should be about En wikipedia issues, it should be about continuing issues - Essentially, it should be about something that the committee can actually sort out. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I had wanted to go the route which would stir up as little additional drama as possible. Having assumed that this would be handled much like cases held in abeyance figuring the ban would make it clear that gaming the vanishing cf a CLEANSTART is prohibited. At the least putting the talk page back is within your purview, since you did the move. Would you please put it back where it belongs? Who makes the decisions about vanishing then? We have a policy on it which says it can not be used to avoid scrutiny so it is under the discretion of enwp. Do you disagree that this vanishing has the effect of hindering scrutiny, especially from outside sources? The FRAMBAN is inside baseball and I doubt any media is interested but the whole APC thing along with the apparent abuse of process etc. that is likely to have some legs. So, not only is it of interest to us for policing behavior and BLP but it is also essential for the ability to fairly report on both the Foundation and Movement. Right now, considering my AGF is low to non-existent, I would see the vanishing; the history of out of process deleting of the talk page with 's comments; then the subsequent hiding the talk page as an unlinked subpage when the deletion did not stick -- well I think it is fishy and if I were an outside party it certainly would not make me disbelieve a cover-up. So, yep... its worth the fight. Where do I properly bring it up? Jbh  Talk  18:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , You don't think Arbcom unilaterally overtuning a RtV and issuing a ban would stir up drama!? You are right that putting the page back would be in my purview - though I don't see a need to at present. It's not deleted, it is linked in the history, but is archived in a manner that many editors (and admins) do. The moment I saw it deleted I did something about it, I agree it should never have been but I do put that down to simple error.  I don't know who makes decisions about vanishing any more as it's a global action, performed by stewards or global renamers. I think asking a friendly steward (or stewards list) where you should ask about overturning would be a good first step. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 20:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ehh... I'm sure Arbcom would catch some crap for it but yeah... it'd be less drama than opening a case or spending 3+ days at AN/ANI only to have half the editors there yelling "but Arbcom is handling this case" and as an increment to what ya'll are already getting it'd be minimal. It is all about relative levels of drama on this. Thanks for the advice, I'll check with the stewards but do, please reconsider moving the talk page back where it belongs. Whether "some admins do it that way" has zero relevance to the simple fact that the effect is to further avoid scrutiny. Regardless please say whether or not that move is an "Arbcom action" an "admin action" or just your own preference. Thanks.   Jbh  Talk  20:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was an admin action. There was no Arbcom involvement - I'm fairly sure most of the members didn't even know about it until this conversation. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 21:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jbh  Talk  21:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see meta:Talk:Steward requests/Username changes for my request to the Stewards. Jbh  Talk  22:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Transparency in arbitration deliberations
At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision, there has been some comments about the iterative nature of the ongoing discussion amongst the arbitrators and with the community. I am posting some feedback here rather than at that page, because my comments are not related to that specific case and do not help to resolve it.

In December 2018,, some editors expressed a desire for arbitrators to post more information on the case pages to keep the community better informed, and to see the options that the committee has considered. There have been other calls for greater transparency in operations, such as requesting that deliberations be held within Wikipedia, as much as possible. Now a cycle similar to what was described in May this year is occurring, where concerns are being raised about the degree of discussion occurring on Wikipedia. The reality is that dispute resolution isn't clean and simple, progressing smoothly from principles to findings to remedies. If the community wants to see deliberations on-wiki, it's going to be messy, with arbitrators re-considering their positions and revisiting matters. If instead the community wants to see a final answer without any preliminaries, then it won't get a sense of how the committee explored its options, and it may get a false impression of all arbitrators having a single, monolithic opinion. It can't work both ways, and trying to have it both ways only encourages the committee to agree ahead of time on what gets said publicly. Having more discussion on-wiki, with the resulting need to integrate community feedback, requires the community to have additional patience. isaacl (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a great point, Isaacl. Thank you for making it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * +1. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And a +1 from me too. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. If we want to see how the sausage is made, we have to be willing to, er, stomach the mess. --valereee (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see all this support for... GorillaWarfare's comment. (And lest someone think it's just an indentation oddity, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&diff=916509220&oldid=916425871&diffmode=visual this edit summary] makes it plainly clear who is being given props.) No need for a response; just teasing after seeing a third response to GorillaWarfare. I know the edit summary was automatically generated by the reply-link script. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess I had a great point that you have a great point :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably not applicable here, but when I was on ArbCom of the Russian Wikipedia a long time ago, we had all discussion off-wiki, had it recorded, and published the discussion after the decision has been taken (redacting some names, some personal comment, and private info if needed). People were in general fine, since they could follow the direction of thought and the reasoning between the decision, and, on the other hand, there was no direct feedback from the community on the arguments, only on the proposed decision, which allowed a free discussion of arbs.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I perhaps should have emphasized that if the community and arbitration committee determine that the disadvantages of having live updates and greater engagement outweigh the advantages, so be it. I just wanted to point out there is an inevitable cost to having more on-wiki discussion during the case, and thus it's not possible to satisfy all of the demands being made on the process. isaacl (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternative view. I think we've had more than enough. MORE THAN! The decision page and especially section 2 (unless it's been renumbered, I have lost track) is a total mess. The decision, when it comes, will be grey, homogeneous and will effectively be a decision by a noisy not necessarily fully representative section of the community, not an elected AC decision. The evidence phase was completed weeks ago - the decision talk page is just adding more fuel to the fire, especially now that Fram is back adding his typical energy sapping payload of 2k, 3k, character, overlong op-ed pieces with their undertone of finger pointing. No one wins in a shambles like this - not even him when he is inevitably fully restored sometime in October when the last browbeaten Arb. finally switches their decision. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the discussion last year, I raised my concerns about the additional workload that results from greater interaction. Back then I also made a set of requests to the community, in order to minimize this workload. There needs to be a balance. As I stated last year, the community must not expect that every comment will be responded to. It's also unrealistic for the community to expect deliberations to show complete unity from start to finish and therefore proceeding with maximal efficiency. On its part, the committee must manage expectations on received feedback: it shouldn't leave engagement as a limitless free-for-all, which risks diffusing the case's progress significantly. isaacl (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Searching for cases
The main ArbCom page needs a search field, to quickly access case history. Can someone well-versed in the case archival system please add that feature? — JFG talk 08:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the search options at Arbitration/Index? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Without having seen this comment, I added a direct link to the index in the hatnote at Arbitration Committee the other day, and it is also linked in Template:ArbCom sidebar. Perhaps a link could also be added (along with one to the noticeboard) to Template:ArbComOpenTasks? Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

e-cigs discretionary sanctions
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles authorised discretionary sanctions for the e-cigs topic area, and [] at least includes a note about them (in the middle of a sea of notices, but that's a separate issue). However, unless I'm being blind, they aren't included in the list at WP:DSTOPICS. I'm guessing this is just a simple oversight (as Wikiblame suggests they've never been listed) but figured it was better to check before adding them (especially as I don't want to accidentally get anything out of sync). Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I somehow missed this message. I actually noticed this myself a couple weeks ago - I was chatting to about it since he made the edit that introduced the list to the DS template, and he was saying the prose list isn't synced with the template for some reason. I (also) didn't want to go mucking about in a template I don't fully know how to operate, so I left it to him to fix when he has the chance. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Arbitration Committee/Emailnotice
has added extra material at User:Arbitration Committee/Emailnotice (the talk page redirects here). This extra material is also being shown to editors requesting oversight, via Special:EmailUser/Oversight, and I think it's confusing to show it there. If someone with admin permissions agrees, could they replace the redirect User:Oversight/Emailnotice with a copy of the parts that are relevant to oversight? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but none of that is quite right for Oversight. I'm not good at writing this sort of short and focused notice though, so I'll tag Risker who is better than me and also flag it up on the Functionary's email list. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello - thanks for sharing your observation and thanks for the ping, .  I've edited the User:Oversight/Emailnotice to reflect information specific to the use of the Oversight "email this user" link, which should be more helpful. We may make some further tweaks if required based on discussion on the Functionaries mailing list.  Risker (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the harassment RFC waiting on specific event(s)?
I'm looking forward to the Fram-ordered RFC on harassment, and wondering whether it's being held for a specific reason or whether it can go ahead? I have quite a lot I'd like to say about both organized and systemic harassment and how the community, admins, Committee, and Foundation tend to handle both. I hope that the scope is broad enough to cover 's specific concerns about the harassment-related findings in that case and in general.

Furthermore, is merely a clerk-run RFC really appropriate for an issue of this magnitude? The Working Group established by the Palestine-Israel articles case seemed profoundly productive and effective to me, and I think it's a shame the working group approach never was tried again. I suggest that the general issue of harassment is wide-ranging enough to be more amenable to such an approach. EllenCT (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Does
the ArbCom bother with acknowledgement letters/emails? Or, does the last iteration of OmbCom, seem attractive? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 15:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , we need to get better at acknowledgments. I, personally, am absolutely rubbish at them. Generally, I believe the committee has been doing ok at keeping up with mail, but I assume we've missed one of yours? I'll look for it. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted and thanks for your acknowledgement of my email; I look forward to a timely disposal of the issue ..... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe / Arbitration/Policy
Joe Roe has asked me to refrain from posting to their talk page and from triggering event notifications in their name. I was attempting to dialogue with Joe Roe regarding their interpretation of WP:COI and their application of it in regards to a recent RfA and attendant discussions. Although Joe Roe never indicated they were speaking in an arbitration capacity, I do feel that they remain accountable to reasonable inquiry on their participation, as an arbitrator’s contributions to any discussion of policy is generally seen to carry more weight and given deference. Accordingly, if a community member feels that an arbitration committee member is misreading, or misapplying policy, they are permitted to inquire with that committee member to resolve any potential misunderstandings on either side (Arbitration/Policy). If Joe Roe does not wish to engage with the community on their understanding and application of this topic, I respectfully submit that they should resign from the committee without delay. Failing that, I reserve the right to continue to hold Joe Roe accountable to the arbitrator conduct guidelines unless instructed to do otherwise by the entire committee or a community-imposed restriction. I assume Joe Roe is watching this page, however if someone feels they should be notified please do so. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * it is because you have become absolutely overly invested in this RfA, and "even" arbitrators are entitled not to be badgered on their own talk; likewise WP:NOBAN is available to all and not limited by office. Incidentally, please see pots, kettels and their respective qualities of blackness. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link to the essay, I will review it with an open mind. I’m here inquiring about policy. That you feel this all turns on the result of a single RfA and not all candidacies indicates to me you do not appreciate the concern I am raising or my reasons for doing so. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  14:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think conflating an entire field of study with a specific employer is an error that is rather preposterous (I supported the RfA, btw — not sure where that places me in this dispute). El_C 14:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi El_C: it was, by design. I don’t want to get into those specifics here though. I am available at my talk page. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that I enjoy defending Joe, but maybe there are 2 links that would help. Keep in mind that Joe was hit with 4 or 5 posts by people who disagreed with his assessment of the RfA in a short period of time.  My guess is that you just happened to be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, hence the reaction you got.  Also keep in mind that I have a tremendous amount of respect for you Xeno, and I do appreciate the polite and kind nature of your posts.  Still - I think it would have been best after this length of time to relax, accept that it didn't go your way, and move on.  Now - the two links:  WP:TE and WP:STICK are what come to mind.  I'll also mention that if you disagree with the nature of folks using COI as a reason to oppose, perhaps it's the guideline that needs changed and not a person's opinion.  Also, bringing in a person's employment as an example to illustrate your POV does tend to make things personal - I know you weren't the one who originally did it, but I think it was wrong, and you continued that line of non sequitur thinking.  You are welcome on my talk if you truly want to debate this.  — Ched (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that there is a problem with Joe asking you to not ping him. I'd hope that he'd waive that requirement if you were participating in a case or request that he was an arbitrator on, but in general, it's not an unreasonable request. Arbitrators are wikipedians too, and asking someone to leave you alone is a reasonable request in most circumstances when debates start to reach a "more heat than light" area. If your argument is that you'd wish to "hold Joe to account" for his general opinions on CoI - I recommend you do that at elections. If you disagree with his opinion at a case, then feel free to highlight that there. I will drop you a message on your talk page with further thoughts though. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 15:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're party to or want to comment on an arbitration matter then you're of course welcome to contact me however you wish. But I don't think RfA has anything to do with arbitration. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, withdrawn. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (as just another editor, not in any admin capacity). The comment is to none, and to everyone at the same time.  Back in the "olden days" some admins, crats, arbs etc would make note that their comments were in either their capacity as, or simply as any other editor.  It's a habit I haven't seen used for quite some time.  I think all to often they/we tend to see a comment by another editor and simply ass.u.me that it is in their capacity of the highest position they hold (or have held).  We shouldn't assume that.  In fact, and I could be wrong, but IIRC there was a comment made recently after User:SilkTork stepped away from AC that it wasn't right for him to comment as a "former arb" - (which is a pretty odd stance to take IMO).  There's times I'll make a comment, and without realizing that someone may look at my rights, and think I'm trying to throw some weight around as a Sysop.  That's not my intent, but it does happen.  Just an IMO observation. — Ched (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , there was discussion about my intention to ask Fram a question in their RfA and then place a vote depending on their answer, and it was felt to be within policy, but not an appropriate thing to do. That was more a question of being involved, rather than simply wearing a hat. So I didn't. SilkTork (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies to for the inadvertent space in the original ping. (now fixed I think) — Ched (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And just like that I'm wrong again. — Ched (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Harassment RFC/working group status?
May I please have an update on the status of the clerk-led RFC to be held on harassment? I would like to reiterate my request that a working group may be more appropriate in this case, but I would be happy to express that view in an RFC as well. EllenCT (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We're still internally discussing this – it may be some time before we are able to begin the RfC. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions amendment on awareness
As Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions was amended in July, could a corresponding note be added to the section? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! isaacl (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Link to the elections
Should WP:ARBCOM describe and link to the forthcoming elections? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It was also not there last year (I guess it was never there, or at least not recently), but I agree that one should be able to reasonably easily arrive to thew ArvCom election page starting from the ArbCom page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. I've added it to the page hatnote. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

adjusting the balance

 * This is about Discretionary Sanctions * as applied to individual editors--blocks, topic bans, interaction bans, etc., not to page-level sanctions like Extended Confirmed edit protection or 1RR
 * This is about Discretionary Sanctions * as applied to individual editors--blocks, topic bans, interaction bans, etc., not to page-level sanctions like Extended Confirmed edit protection or 1RR

1. The reason we have Discretionary Sanctions (DS) is to eliminate the second mover advantage in ordinary administrative sanctions.--topic bans, interaction bans, blocks. When DS were adopted, this 2nd mover advantage was being exploited by supporters of abusive admins, mostly abusive admins from the early years, who would overturn other admins sanctions against them and effectually paralyze enforcement.

2. Discretionary Sanctions changes this to first mover advantage. No other administrator can remove the sanction without clear consensus--this is called stickiness. This causes a different form of unfairness, by favoring the actions of whichever admins are prepared to enforce most aggressively. Making DS more sticky was essential--but we seem to have over-done it. We need to balance.

3. We could modify Discretionary Sanction slightly for balance by decreasing the stickiness. this could be done by:
 * a requiring consensus,
 * This means changing the rule that reversing a Discretionary Sanction at Arbitration Enforcement (AE) requires "clear and substantial consensus"; Perhaps this special condition is not longer necessary or can at least be modified this can be done anyway by interpretation at At closings, but it wouldn't be consistent.)


 * b. limiting penalties
 * This would mean limiting the length on the various sanctions (at least, eliminate indefinite--those cases meriting indefinite could be done by ordinary sanctions, not AE), and by removing the right to invent unusual sanctions. Probably it would be easier to have just a small change: remove indef, limit to 6 months., remove the phrase  "or anything else that would help".


 * c/. discouraging individuals from dominating the process.
 * can be done by just adding a general statement to INVOLVED, warning against excessive involvement with the same editor or topic .It could even have numerical limits, but in terms of practicality, a general statement would be more likely to get agreement.

BUT, do we need Discretionary Sanctions on individual editors at all?

AT LEAST, do we need individual placements of Discretionary Sanctions on editors, without going to AE; there were only 83 EA actions against individuals so far in 2019 listed at WP:Arbitration enforcement log, most of which could clearly have beed be achieved by ordinary means without using AE.

KEEP IN MIND that the entire set of rules grew up gradually as Arb procedures. Therefore, adopting any of these changes needs to be either done by the Arbitration Committee, or by the very difficult process of changing Arbitration Policy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)   DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe a discretionary-sanction block is limited to one year. Your reason for DS existing (to remove second mover advantage) is valid but I think another important point is that DS are available for contentious topics where any discussion of a proposed sanction would be hotly contested. DS allows an admin to cut through that with "you are blocked" to stop behavior considered unproductive. Further, participants know that they may be blocked without warning and that focuses their minds on being as nice as possible. Therefore, I think an admin should be able to issue an immediate block (or other sanction such as a topic ban), without discussion. However, I like the idea of limiting such a block to perhaps a month or even a week. I have seen clumsy enforcement with wildly escalating blocks that inflame tensions and a low first-mover limit should be tried. A longer block (up to a year) might require, say, 72 hours discussion at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding The reason we have Discretionary Sanctions (DS) is to eliminate the second mover advantage in ordinary administrative sanctions.--topic bans, interaction bans, blocks.: bans are not ordinary administrative sanctions. Ordinarily, they can only be imposed by the community or the Arbitration Committee. Discretionary sanctions, as I understand it, was invented as a way for the Arbitration Committee to delegate some of its authority to administrators for issuing bans, in specific areas it identifies as contentious. As Johnuniq mentioned, I believe this possibility for quick reactions to problematic editors can help dowse inflammatory discussion. isaacl (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was invented by arb com. It started off a little differently than now, with at first ease case doing it a little differently. It has more recently been regularized. My impression is that arb com did not fully realize how sticky it would prove to be.  I am stopping short of saying it was a mistake altogether. It of something like it was needed at the time, because of the presence of admin cabals supporting each other. This problem is much less significant now-- partly as a result of actions by the Committee, partly because of a change in community attitude, there is much less tolerance of dubious admin activity now, and much more effective use of discussions at the admin boards. This place is no longer the wild west, and has less need of self-appointed marshals.
 * 1) There is one active indefinite block,and several others that were placed, but since rescinded.There are many indefinite topic bans.
 * 2) quick action when needed can be stopped by normal admin blocks, and in fact can be done even quicker because of the absence of notifying and logging requirements. I'm not proposing the end of these. For short-term blocks, stickiness is not required.
 * 3) "people know they can be blocked without warning and that focusses their mind..." -- that's another problem. Since anyone can threaten to ask for a DS, and any admin can threaten to place one themselves, this threat is itself a dangerously powerful and tool, and is used frequently by some admins-- some of them sometimes even to enforce their preferred subject POV. It's an effective way to shut down minority positions--it scares people.
 * 4) "DS allows an admin to cut through that with "you are blocked" to stop behavior considered unproductive" -- note the word considered -- not judged, not evaluated, n, just what any one of our 400 admins "considers" unproductive.  And note the word "unproductive". The admin role is to stop active that is disruptive. What is merely unproductive,  describes half the arguments on WP.  DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) And to clarify, I'd be glad to achieve any one of several first steps--as mentioned, the suggestion to decrease the maximum time would be a good way to start. If it proves too much of a restriction, it can be easily changed back. DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , please discuss the importance of your questions. Have you noticed a trend towards ineffective enforcement, or something else, which prompted you to argue for changing the ease with which sanctions can be issued?  AGK  &#9632;  13:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Before I was elected to arb com in 2014, I had  followed Arb Com cases, but   once the decisions were made, I  paid little attention to implementation.. Once I was on the committee, I  became of course more involved in the discussion on-wiki and on the arb mailing list about proposed penalties, and also  the changes in details of notfication that  were being requested and implemented. During my second term,  I expressed several times my increasing doubts, and I think finally abstained on 1 or 2 decisions remedies, and gave this as the reason. to AE. And I recalled some discussions with  present and past members of the committee where there seemed to be views that one of the reason we never fixed Discretionary Sanctions was because we could not figure out what to fix it to. I agreed that I too could not think of an alternative.
 * When I was not reelected in the 2018 election, I decided to use my experience to watch and perhaps participate in enforcement.  A few months ago, I noted an admin's page on some new sanctions they was using, and joined in the discussion on that talk page, to the extent that  one of those sanctions was changed. About a month ago, I made a more specific comment there about sanctions in a particular currently contentious area, American Politics. I had been looking at that area because of discussions about the appropriate breadth of the sanctions, and it looked that there might possibly be over-involved participation. This started me thinking if I might have some suggestions, not just objections. I discovered I could at last find some  suggestions--not for replacement necessarily, but at least modification.  The admin asked me to explain further, people suggested that  we move to a more visible place, and  here I am.  DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And, more immediately, I wanted a topic for my lighting talk at WM-NorthAmerica in Boston this very morning. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think some variation of proposal "a" above would be a good thing. I see Discretionary Sanctions as a few extra tools for admins who work in troubled areas. Typically we have 3 main tools: warnings, blocks, and page protection. DS adds a few more specialized tools like topic bans and revert restrictions, but with the caveat that no other admin can reverse DS without a consensus of admins. I've never liked that last bit, and I think it would be better if topic bans were treated more like regular blocks (a second admin should not reverse it without first discussing with the first admin, but it should be able to be handled like an unblock request without a huge appeal process at WP:AE). I've also thought that maybe at some point in the future, topic bans could be replaced with a form of Partial blocks that simply cover a topic area. That could remove a lot of ambiguity that is currently contained in the words "broadly construed" and prevent people from accidentally violating the topic bans. The pattern of having one's opponents stalk edits, looking for and reporting violations, would no longer be necessary. ~Awilley (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I like Awilley's suggestion about using partial blocks in place of topic bans. It has never really made sense to me that an admin, acting alone in regular admin capacity, can issue an indefinite block, but AE blocks are required to be limited in time. The purpose of AE is to handle the things that are too difficult for regular admin action, so I would think it would stand to reason that AE cases would often deal with problems that justify an idef. And I see no problem with making any kind of sanction indef, so long as there is a viable appeal process. I was heavily involved in an AE case that just ended recently, and something that I think I observed is that, even with DS, the AE admins had a very hard time enacting sanctions that they had all agreed were appropriate, apparently because of cautiousness over being criticized for their decision. I think that once ArbCom has gone through an entire case and determined that DS should apply in some area, admins should feel empowered to act decisively, and I'm not sure that they actually do feel that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Just noting that we don't actually have the technical capability of placing partial blocks yet. They're only available on Test Wiki, and even there it's not feasible to place a block on a large number of pages. And I'm honestly not sure how that would work...possibly something like an edit filter that blocks editing to all pages where the associated talk page contains the template of a particular WikiProject? ~Awilley (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. But it seems worth pursuing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think raises quite an important point; that the structure of current DS favors the most aggressive enforcement. This can cause problems in and of itself; I've taken issue with many sanctions issued unilaterally; but I've also seen it cause trouble when unilateral sanctions are then appealed or further discussed because they were unilateral and perceived to be too harsh, whereas a consensus decision would perhaps carry more weight. Now I see the arguments against requiring admin consensus at AE, but I think we need to find a middle path here, especially for those actions that are brought to AE. Perhaps at the very least, we should make it clear that admins should not be placing unilateral sanctions when there is consensus, even weak consensus, against those very sanctions. I think the rest of the DS regime, honestly, is a Good Thing, and allows us to speedily deal with a lot of bullshit that would otherwise render our WP:CESSPIT quite impossible to deal with.  to answer a point you raise, I think it makes a lot of sense to limit the duration of DS blocks, because DS blocks may be placed for a wider set of reasons than regular ones. If an editor is serially disruptive in an obvious manner, then they need an indef, but in those situations DS do not typically need to be invoked; conversely, the blocks placed under DS are often for complex bad behavior that editors may, theoretically, unlearn with time. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * After arbitration case, the discretionary sanctions procedures were updated to state When a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. As I said in January 2018 as part of an amendment request for arbitration case , neither arbitration case nor  made much progress on balancing the goal of discretionary sanctions&mdash;to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles&mdash;with the need to have safeguards against arbitrary enforcement decisions. I suggested having circuit-breaker rules to trigger the need for a consensus discussion before any sanctions could be applied, though I'm still uncertain what set of rules would be appropriate. isaacl (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request for Awareness section
I find this section somewhat unclear. For example:
 * if an editor receives a warning about DS in an area of conflict, but then more specific restrictions are passed through a later case/amendment and such, should we assume that said editor must be aware of them?
 * if an editor participates in a process about an area of conflict, like an ArbCom case, for example by presenting evidence, are they assumed to be aware of its findings and possible DS or such even if they are not named in any of them? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For your first question, I'd say it depends. If the addition restrictions are article specific they should be noted on the article talk page and someone aware of the restrictions in the topic area should know to check the talk page for any specific restrictions. If the restrictions are not mentioned on the article talk page, and they haven't been involved in discussions elsewhere then latitude should be given.
 * For your second question, yes if their participation was within the last 12 months. See WP:ACDS point 4: someone is aware if . Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Transitional arrangements for arbcom business open as of 1 January
At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals (a case almost certain to still be open in January) the question was asked about whether old or new arbitrators would be the ones voting. I replied explaining what the clear precedent is, but despite thinking this is documented somewhere I've been unable to find it. If it is documented somewhere, please could someone link to it here (and probably in the ArbCom procedures section). If it isn't it should probably be documented somewhere and linked in those places. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's documented at WP:ARBPOL, An arbitrator whose term expires while a case is pending may remain active on that case until its conclusion. Newly appointed arbitrators may become active on any matter before the Committee with immediate effect from the date of their appointment. Note that this is the arrangement for cases, but does not apply to outstanding ARCAs or motions – outgoing arbs cease being active on those as soon as their term ends. –  bradv  🍁  15:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrator attrition
Looking at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019, approximately 40% of arbitrators elected in the past two elections have become inactive or left Arbcom before the end of their terms. A committee of eight active arbitrators is near the low end of what I feel comfortable with having. Given that arbitrators are volunteers and that the role is demanding, I understand why people would decide to leave, but are there changes that should be made to improve retention? As much as I wish there was consensus and a funding source for paying arbitrators and other people who are in demanding community roles, I am not currently aware of any willing funder, so what could be done instead? ↠Pine  ( ✉ )  08:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As a reference, some discussion on the problems with attracting arbitrators can be found at . isaacl (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't think it's about money, in fact I'm glad to do this in a volunteer role, because I cannot think of a number that would not make me think "That role for that much? Not worth it!" - I'm also not keen on the idea of people running simply to be financially compensated. Last year has been particularly tough, because the community has been dealing with some big issues, especially Fram, but also has tackled some difficult issues voluntarily. This has led to a noticeable backlash against individual committee members. That said, committee members leave for their own reasons, I believe each to leave this year had their own off-wiki reasons to do so. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it is probably safe to assume that arbitrators will continue resigning at this rate. The rate is not much higher than for other small user groups like the bureaucrats (churn of around 1/4–1/3 this year) or the BAG (also around 1/3).  For ArbCom, the difference is that we typically only have one intake – there are no "reserve" members or ad hoc elections.The happy news is that the committee is going back up to 15 members this year.  Larger committees can afford to give members more time off; that may reduce the rate of resignations.  It also puts members in a better frame of mind to deal with the harsh environment of ArbCom (refer to Worm That Turned's comment above) and to be making better decisions in the first place (which is easy to let slip in a volunteer gig).The WMF are generally not known for throwing money at volunteers and I do not think it would help here in any case.  They already provide some resources, although I think most of them are mediocre and some actively unhelpful.  AGK  &#9632;  14:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with AGK and Worm that money would make no difference (except that possibly it might attract candidates who are more interested in money than the work of the committee). I also would point out that the attrition this year isn't out of the ordinary at all; when looking at the longterm history of Arbcom, about half of arbitrators don't complete their full term, and several who may or may not have completed a term were inactive for significant portions of their tenure. The committee seems to work best when it has about 15 members at the start of the term; more than that was a bit unwieldy, but less than that really makes it susceptible.  Risker (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Appealing non-active sanctions
Not being active in DS fields as an admin, and almost never as an editor, I was interested by the line of this which indicates that Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Sometimes short blocks can be handed out - if an editor happened to miss this, would it not be impossible for them to appeal it? Even a short block has lasting consequences well after the actual editing prevention has ended. This includes formal (e.g. prohibitions against applying for certain user rights) and informal. At least in the case of the former, would that count as the sanction still being active, and thus subject to appeal? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Design improvements for lengthy and/or multi-page discussions
This may sound superficial, but I am wondering if some modifications Arbcom pages' visual designs, improvements to ease of navigation, would help in any statistically significant way, both for the sake of arbitrators and the sake of the broader community. I think that Flow was supposed to help with some of this, and maybe upcoming changes to the mobile and desktop interfaces will also be designed to help with ease of navigation of lengthy discussions. (Pinging to request comment on this point; there may be multiple WMF projects that are relevant here.) I don't think that Arcbom or the community would want WMF to make changes specifically to the designs of Arbcom pages, but changes to ease of navigation for lengthy and/or multi-page discussions might result in improved efficiency and ease of use for many people who read or contribute to these types of discussions. ↠Pine  ( ✉ )  17:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, Pine, it would be helpful if you bothered to have a discussion with the community before you started calling in WMF staff to discuss your personal concerns. Please stop doing this, it's disrespectful to both the community and the WMF employees whose job doesn't normally include making proposals for change that haven't been requested.  Risker (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * um, I'm confused. This is a talk page about Arbcom matters, and I am not creating an RfC. This is simply a discussion, and I think that it's fine. ↠Pine   ( ✉ )  17:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In your opening statement, you ping a specific WMF employee to "request comment". You also talk about having the WMF make changes specifically to the design of Arbcom pages (granted that you aren't positive about it), and refer to various interface changes, one of which has explicitly been rejected by the enwiki community. You're not actually talking about Arbcom, you're talking about interface changes being designed by the WMF and asking one of the developers to comment on *your* idea. If you had said "hey arbcom/community, if you had a chance how would you modify the visual design of Arbcom pages? Should we talk about that?" without discussing either the WMF, its current redesign ideas, or a specific WMF employee (whose job probably doesn't include dropping in to random pages whenever *you* think a change is a good idea), you could start a conversation. As it is, you leave people with the impression that you've already decided that (a) Arbcom pages need to be redesigned and (b) that there's a specific WMF staff member who should be involved in the redesign. Risker (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pine's comment engaged the community and circumvented the WMF, which is the very thing you are criticising them for not doing. Pine pinged the developer requesting a summary of software strategy (hardly an easy thing to track at the best of times); the pinged user was free to ignore.  If you have a valid concern, you are not expressing it clearly, and talking about impressions sounds like a way of saying you are hearing what you like.  AGK  &#9632;  18:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how pinging a specific WMF employee, whose role does not include regularly interfacing with the community, is "circumvent[ing] the WMF". Simply put, now that employee is in one of the worst possible positions - choose not to comment and risk being considered aloof and rejecting the community, or comment in an area that may or may not be within his scope, about a topic exactly one person has expressed an interest in, on a highly public page. There's no winning for the employee. So, AGK, do *you* think that Arbcom pages should be redesigned?  If so, what would you like to see?  (That's how you start a conversation about whether or not Arbcom pages should be redesigned, not by pinging WMF staff.)  Risker (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate how you feel trying to identify a need should precede gathering information on what relevant projects may already be in progress. I also appreciate, though, that others may like to make some polite inquiries at the same time, to get an idea of what related initiatives exist, which may help with brainstorming. I trust that the community will recognize the request as a fully optional one that can be handled as the recipient best sees fit. isaacl (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * CKorener (WMF) is a community liaison, and as I understand the role of community liaison, it includes facilitating communications between community members and WMF.
 * If you had asked me for clarification regarding some of the points that you mention, I would say:
 * regarding Flow, I would oppose including it on ENWP now, and possibly forever. I have used Flow on other Wikimedia sites, and I think that it is far too constrictive for how English Wikipedia uses talk pages. I think that further consideration of making talk pages be easier to use is a good idea, but that probably won't include implementing Flow, especially not in its current form.
 * regarding the redesign of Arbcom talk pages, possibly; in general I would like complex and lengthy discussions to be easier to digest, but I have no specific ideas in mind.
 * I do not have any specific WMF staff members in mind to involve in a redesign, and more importantly, I am not advocating (1) for the start of any specific redesign for Arbcom pages at this time, or (2) for the start of a formal discussion about principles for a redesign of Arbcom pages.
 * I think that it is fine for CKorener (WMF) to refer this matter to someone else if he thinks that this would be preferable. Also worth noting is this is not an inquiry that needs an answer today, or even this week.
 * I request that if you have doubts about my intentions, or if you think that I am implying something that is problematic, that you ask for clarification.
 * ↠Pine  ( ✉ )  19:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I interpreted the ping as a collegial FYI with the possibility of getting advice on whether there might be some technical hurdles to be taken into account, but not as a misleading request for WMF to begin action. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, it sounds like you're wanting to know a few things. Is there work that might help make long/complicated discussion like here at ArbCom more manageable, and could the Foundation spend resources – perhaps in the form of a design consultation – to look into the specifics of how editors experience the ArbCom "interface" (for lack of a better word). I hope I'm understanding correctly. I can only provide guidance as I'm not involved in these endeavors, but I'll do my best. :)
 * Hey, it sounds like you're wanting to know a few things. Is there work that might help make long/complicated discussion like here at ArbCom more manageable, and could the Foundation spend resources – perhaps in the form of a design consultation – to look into the specifics of how editors experience the ArbCom "interface" (for lack of a better word). I hope I'm understanding correctly. I can only provide guidance as I'm not involved in these endeavors, but I'll do my best. :)


 * The Editing team at the foundation recently completed a long consultation about talk pages. The result is a project that seeks to improve the status quo. Folks interested can track progress on the project and the team is currently looking for folks to get involved. I think it would be great to have someone (or more than one!) familiar with ArbCom and the use of talk pages in this space to try out the prototype and provide feedback. As you can imagine, Talk pages and the ensuing kinds of discussions take many forms within in the movement. More representation now can help provide better outcomes in how the software is developed.


 * As for the design of ArbCom pages. My answer is a little more vague. We do have product design and design strategy teams. They may be able to help, but you'd have to ask them on where this would fit into their work. One thought that might be helpful is to consider how we (the foundation) can help make substantive changes not just here on English Wikipedia, one of our largest and most healthy projects, but across the many smaller and less established communities. That's where our effort has the largest impact and our strategy has been the focus of for the last few years. In other words, asking Design to spend time understanding and providing recommendations to just English Wikipedia probably won't spark as much interest as saying, "How can we fix the design concerns of administrative interfaces at a more holistic level?"


 * As for the meta commentary from others, I do appreciate the concerns and agree it would be best if community members interested in this area could work together on proposals. Workshopping an idea and having a more well-rounded and solid proposal for any foundation work goes far in attention and prioritization. As a side note, getting the attention of someone at the foundation, hopefully the right person, is something of a frustration for everyone. The team I'm part of, recently moved to another department in the foundation, has it on our plate to try and determine a more approachable and equitable solution than, "Hey, I know works for the foundation, let me ask them on this (sometimes seemingly random) talk page and hope they have the time and ability to answer.". :) Keep an eye on that task as we make more progress.

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for the information. For what it's worth, I have now asked whether there will be newsletters for the Desktop Improvements project and the Talk pages project. ↠Pine   ( ✉ )  20:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Communications issues
Last year, many concerns were raised with problems in wording of statements by arbitrators and the arbitration committee as a whole. (One notable example was discussed at, but there are numerous other instances.) I am hopeful that the committee has taken stock of these concerns and will continue to work on improving. I am troubled, though, at the use of "right away" in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=934832096&oldid=934831028 this statement]. Under the best of circumstances, asking a volunteer to do something right away is somewhat confrontational. In this case, the person in question has already expressed distaste with such statements and the wording is unlikely to expedite matters. I believe it is preferable to use another wording that still indicates the urgency from the committee's point of view, while still acknowledging the community's volunteer aspect, such as "as soon as practical". I trust arbitrators will do their best to consider how the effect of their words will help produce the desired result, or hinder it from occurring. isaacl (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You may not be aware that arbs are volunteers too and expecting perfection in all things from them is unwarranted. When an experienced editor says "right away" to another experienced editor, it is obvious they mean "before going on to do other stuff". Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have indeed written about the need to be understanding about editors being imperfect in their communications. I provided my personal feedback on the effect of a specific statement to a specific editor who has already provided a reaction to a similar statement. I acknowledge, of course, that my personal feelings may not correspond with those others, and I apologize for not making this clear. isaacl (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback, Isaacl. The committee has definitely taken the concerns raised around that administrators notice on board, and I think we are generally trying to be more thoughtful about statements we make as a committee. In the end we are all Wikipedia editors working to improve the encyclopedia, and we definitely don't wish to come across as adversarial or needlessly authoritative. That said, as individuals we certainly each have our own communication styles, and that comes across in statements we make when handling arb business, which are not vetted by the committee as are more "official" statements made on behalf of the whole team. As such, it might be worth addressing this concern directly with AGK (or at least pinging him to this discussion, as I've just done) as you would with any other concern about an editor's communication style.
 * Personally, I interpreted AGK's statement to mean that he is hoping Kudpung will make a statement on the case request as soon as he is next on-wiki. None of us expect people to wake up in the middle of the night or interrupt their off-wiki obligations in order to handle Wikipedia business, though we do expect people to respond promptly to case requests when they are on-wiki. I believe this is what AGK was trying to convey, but I'm sure he can clarify this himself if he feels there was a misunderstanding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare, you are shewing less consideration here for one editor's expressed likes or dislikes about language used than you did on ANI and on your talkpage in a related thread. I don't want to call you a hypocrite, but it looks to me like you are biased here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I have just stated that we have taken onboard the feedback from the community on the statement Isaacl referenced, and as far as I'm aware we have not since repeated the error. I've also tried to clarify what I thought may have been a misunderstanding, and encouraged Isaacl to discuss this directly with AGK. What could I possibly do to be more considerate here? Or are you just using this as an opportunity to get your jabs in at me because we disagreed on that point? I don't appreciate it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You had a go at me but not at AGK. I don't appreciate that. DuncanHill (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I genuinely have no idea what you're accusing me of here. I didn't have a go at anyone in my reply to Isaacl, and if somehow it reads to you like I was having a go at you then I assure you I did not intend it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, on ANI and on your talkpage in a related thread. But I suppose remembering something you read and replied to a few minutes ago isn't part of the Arb skillset these days. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That would seem to answer my question about whether this is a genuine concern or if you're just getting jabs in. I hope this has accomplished your goal, and if you would like to have a constructive discussion, you know where to find me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that confirms my suspicions about your bias against me. Obviously not only due to your admitted ignorance. DuncanHill (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I wished to suggest to the entire committee that they strive to be mindful of the effect of the wording they use, and so chose to comment here. I was not intending to go into an extended discussion on this particular statement. To clarify, though, I did not feel that an expectation was being made that someone would immediately stop off-wiki activities. (It would be unusual for someone to expect an on-wiki message to be received and responded to while off-wiki.) I believe the implication you described is clear and I do not believe there was any misunderstanding. As I stated, my feedback was in the context of the previous reaction to a similar statement.
 * I apologize for not making it clear that I don't expect perfect messages, and I have no expectations on how any future messages may be perceived, as I appreciate the difficulty of the task. I am simply hopeful that additional consideration may be given. isaacl (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it, that makes sense to me. We all watch this page, so I'm sure we will all read and consider this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , arbitrators must express themselves clearly and extract the information or outcome they think is required.  We sometimes need to speak plainly, and in this case the subject had commented at the request about a number of matters without addressing the complaint itself.  I wished for that to change and for a statement to be provided, which is why I said that the party should do nothing next except write a substantive statement.  My comment reflected a simple reality: we could have been quickest addressing the matter if Kudpung had responded to the filing party's case, not talking about other issues.  Saying that is not really trying to circumvent WP:NOTCOMPULSORY.  I agree with Johnuniq and GorillaWarfare's comments too.  Do you see where I am coming from?  AGK  &#9632;  20:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally believe a plain statement of your concern would have been helpful, such as "Please respond to the filing party's case and not other issues". I do appreciate that different editors have their own communication styles, and I agree that messages are not expected to be perfect. As I said to GorillaWarfare, I do not believe there was any intent to circumvent that Wikipedia is a volunteer community. isaacl (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/TTN
I've been away for ten years. Isn't TTN banned from deletion stuff? Thanks. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If so, it's not listed at Editing restrictions. TTN was given a six month restriction in 2008 but that's obviously long expired, and I can't see the name coming up more recently in any arb case. (I'm not about to wade through 1000+ ANI archives, but if a ban was enacted there the onus is on the banners to add it to the list otherwise the rest of us can't reasonably be expected to know about it.) &#8209; Iridescent 07:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing still in force from the committee as far as I can tell. Pinging as a courtesy. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  12:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing still in force from the committee as far as I can tell. Pinging as a courtesy. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  12:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinating arbitrator
Is there a someone who is currently assigned to the role of coordinating arbitrator? My understanding is that the coordinating arbitrator is assigned to sorting incoming email, and I was looking for a way to contact that person. I have heard that the main Arbcom mailing list gets flooded with junk mail, so I want to make sure that an email thread that was sent to that mailing list was processed. Thank you. ↠Pine  ( ✉ )  01:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is not a coordinating arbitrator, nor has anyone held that position in any official sense while I've been on the Committee. Usually whoever first lets an email through the moderation queue is the one to acknowledge receipt, though sometimes that is missed. I have just acknowledged some emails that came through; if you have not received acknowledgement for the email that you're expecting, feel free to contact me privately and we can ensure it made it through. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for the information. I suggest that Arbcom update Arbitration Committee/Procedures to account for the deprecation of the role of coordinating arbitrator. ↠Pine   ( ✉ )  01:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, I will mention it to the rest of the Committee on the mailing list. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)