Open main menu

Contents

Armenia-AzerbaijanEdit

Wikipedia:General sanctions sounds like a good idea. I have taken the liberty to add the second Armenia-Azerbaijan case (with some rewording, for consistency) to it. I submit it to your and other members of the Committee's approval. El_C 09:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, but keeping the actual wording is probably the better approach, to reduce potential confusion. Kirill 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Kirill. I take your point about confusion, but at the same time, this "Applicability to all disruptive editors" seemed to me as a de facto "General restriction" (or perhaps, proto-General restriction), which is why I went on to modify the wording to read something very similar, stylistically, with all the remedies remaining still quoted down to the word, of course. My question, then, is: whether you consider the distinction between "Applicability to..." and "General restriction" to go beyond simply being called different things...? El_C 14:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There's little practical difference. Essentially, what we have:
  • Armenia-Azerbaijan: General civility parole, revert parole, probation
  • Digwuren: General civility parole
  • Macedonia: "Discretionary sanctions" (which allows a much broader set of measures than the other two cases)
So, in practice, we could rename the A-A remedy to "General restriction" and not lose any meaning. As a matter of ease-of-use, though, I think the page will be easier to deal with if the wording of the decision is copied exactly, to avoid people arguing over whether the meaning is different, and so forth. (I've been trying to move towards standard wording in remedies, incidentally, to avoid this sort of situation.) Kirill 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I see; I wasn't aware of the distinction between "GR" and "DS" — I don't know if they're actually defined anywhere (perhaps that's not even needed, at least at this stage, so long as it remains simply a matter of degrees and broad description, and limited to very few instances/arbitration cases; it is likely to increase though... and expect arguments about the meaning and scope of each "type," regardless of anything). At any event, I'm pleased to see you abandoned the "Applicability" confusion and just opted for "GR." I liked the uniformity of my wording, but I didn't realize that yours were whole (not fragmented and synthesized, as was mine) excerpts. Doesn't really matter. Latest additions look good. El_C 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Article probationEdit

Do we want to merge the list of articles under probation here in those cases where a broad class of articles are included? - Jehochman Talk 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no problems with merging the entire article probation page here; no sense in having multiple places for recording these when one will do. Just put the list of articles into the "Applicable area" column and "Article probation" in the "Type" column. Kirill 17:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I've merged the list of articles under probation, but not the description of article probation. - Jehochman Talk 00:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've merged the (useful parts of the) definition. Some of these look like they need review, as they've been superseded by subsequent sanctions. Kirill 04:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the template designer for the Article Probation template might include info on who imposed it, the date imposed, and an expiration date? I've been trying to update and improve the article Bybee Memo which has a Probation template on its discussion page, presumably leftover from some past feud to which I was not privy. I hope to discuss changes with previous contributers but I think they're all scared of the page now and won't respond. Probation needs to expire at some point. Mindful of the prohibition on altering another editor's work--especially when it comes to a 'disciplinary action'-- I don't think I should remove the template myself. But I don't know who to contact about it, and I think the template should tell me.ElijahBosley (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Admins?Edit

"Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages." Is that correct? How would that be implemented? Would the admin just tell the person not to edit the article and threaten to block them if they did? 4.21.209.231 (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally it's uninvolved administrators, as well, following on from the principle in Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Daniel 10:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientology article probabtionEdit

According to a banner on the talk page at Talk:William S. Burroughs, articles related to Scientology are under probation, yet this isn't listed here. Has it been missed, or has probation ended so the banner can be removed from the Burroughs article? 23skidoo (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's here, under "COFS". Kirill 22:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One missing?Edit

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon appears to place 2006 Lebanon War under article probation - should this be here? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should (although it's been superseded now). Kirill 03:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ScopeEdit

Hiya, just checking, since this page specifically says that it applies to articles. However, that means that it applies to articles, and their respective talkpages, yes? I would also expect that there's some overlap such as "other talkpages where the article is being discussed"? --Elonka 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?Edit

I have proposed a means by which arbitrators may impose article probation without necessarily taking a case, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy#Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?. I invite discussion there. MilesAgain (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions templateEdit

A new Sanctions template has been developed which could tag articles and notify (otherwise uninformed) users about possible sanctions. Kudos to SEWilco for the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HG (talkcontribs) 18:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that could be useful. Kirill 23:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing - articles vs editors - Am I over-reacting?Edit

Okay - I have a couple of discussion points I'd like to cover:

Editors / ArticlesEdit

The distinction between "editors placed on editing restrictions" vs "articles and subjects under sanctions" (my words). The way this page currently reads, it is very confusing. For instance, "Types of sanctions" talks mostly about editors, not articles. Also, the "Active sanctions" has as its first column an editor (as often as not).

The distinction is really "sanctions placed directly on a specific editor" versus "sanctions placed (or capable of being placed) on all editors of a specific article or topic". The sanctions here have a scope defined by articles rather than by editor names; but they still apply to editor conduct. Kirill 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Technical vs SubjectiveEdit

Another confusion point: Dealing with editors that have restrictions is technical - they're blocked. Or the namespaces they are allowed to edit in are specifically defined.

Dealing with articles that have sanctions seems to be waay too subjective:

  • "Disruptive edits" has no definition. As an administrator, can I decide to block someone for editing a particular article? Or can I go beyond 3RR in reverting a particular editor?
  • "Administrators may impose one or more specific restrictions on editors." - that's not definitive at all. When can I impose them? And how far can I go? Do I have to have endorsement from any other administrators, or is my word fiat?
Each case may be different; you need to look at the specific sanction in question to determine what exactly you may or may not do under its provisions. (This is particularly true for the "General restriction"-type sanctions, which are very different from case to case, and are grouped together for convenience rather than due to true equivalence.) Kirill 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ClarificationEdit

Finally, who is allowed to add articles and subject areas to this list? I assume ArbCom, and that's inferred by having "Imposed by the Committee" and "Imposed by the Community", but it's not specified anywhere.

That's right. Most of the sanctions are imposed by the Committee, but there has been some movement recently to have the community impose at least the lower-level ones directly; hence the two sections. Kirill 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I bring this up because I'm extremely worried about the subjectivity and possible power struggles involved in these issues. I'm only tangentially related to one of them, and I've seen how passionate editors can get on particular subjects. If a situation gets all the way to editing restrictions and/or article sanctions, we must be *very* clear about what can and cannot be done. Otherwise we're leaving ourselves open to even more disruption.

After writing all this, I realize I may be over-reacting - and I hope I am. But I would like to see some clarity on this page. BTW, is it a guideline? As it stands, I don't see how this has any weight behind it. Sigh. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This has the weight of the imposing authority (generally the Committee, but sometimes the community) behind it. Kirill 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Block unregistred users from Articles on Probabation?Edit

I know that the issue of denying access for unregistred users has been discussed before. However, if the WP community make a formal decision that a small number of articles are to be put on probabation, I think is fair enough to block anonomous users from these articles. If newcomers wants to edit highly controversial articles they can spend 60 seconds to register. It is also helpful for good faith editors when they don't have to exhaust their 3RR reverting semi-vandalism. MaxPont (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It'd also prevent "cheating". This appears to be such a case, probably by an involved editor trying to avoid sanctions for making a controversial edit:[1] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If a controversial article is getting a lot of vandalism or inappropriate edits from anonymous accounts, I would have no trouble with putting it on semi-protected status. But if the controversy is coming from established users, semi-protection isn't going to do much. --Elonka 00:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional Template for Article Probation?Edit

I'm returning to WP after a rather long hiatus, and this policy is new to me. I can't say I entirely agree with it, but that aside, shouldn't there be some sort of template for inclusion on the front page of the article, and not merely the talk page? Given the consequences of violating the rule (banning [!] people from participation), shouldn't every effort to advise people of the special nature of probationary articles without requiring them to tab over to the talk page, possibly further requiring that the editor sort through several other templates, in order to understand that they need to take special care in editing? Is this policy intended to be fair to all users, or to be used as a tool for a handful to play "Gotcha!"? Mael-Num (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Special BLP sanctionsEdit

I've added links to the special BLP sanctions. I'm not sure if this should be in a 'see also' section or part of the general sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:General sanctionsEdit

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

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

Questions by ChrisOEdit

I'd like to clarify a couple of policy questions concerning the general implementation of discretionary sanctions:

1) Do restrictions imposed under discretionary sanctions supersede the requirements of standing policy such as NPOV, V, BLP etc?

2) WP:BLP requires editors to "remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" on living people and states that "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals". If a 0RR is in force, does the same consideration apply - i.e. does the removal of such material count as a revert?

Grateful for advice. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This section is redundant now given my request further up this page. I'd be grateful if a clerk could archive it, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by PenwhaleEdit

This is just my personal opinion, but...

1) Restrictions imposed under discretionary sanctions shouldn't trump NPOV, V, and BLP (although I'm having trouble picturing an issue where these would come into play at the same time). Can you provide examples?

2) Regarding the second part, I would tread on the cautious side and say that if it's not obvious, then note it to someone else and let others do it, if 0RR applies to one of the editors involved.

- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 07:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the example in question is here. Specific answers should probably go there, and general ones here. I note that in that example, Elonka refers to ChrisO's citing of BLP as "spin", so there seems to be disagreement there over how to apply BLP. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by KellyEdit

Recommend merging this request with #Request for appeal: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, above. Kelly hi! 15:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


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

Article probation/sanction not stemming from an RFAREdit

I was poking around at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation and decided it seems a bit awkward for the page describing the sanctions to be in the "Talk:" namespace, and to include language specifically saying that discussion of the sanctions should not take place on the talk page but rather on WP:AN/I. I'm guessing part of the problem is that you can't have a talk page of a talk page, but I think we would be better off in the long run moving the above page and any similar ones out of the article talk namespace and making them to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Barack Obama, etc. That would also make it easier to keep the main General sanctions page updated. — CharlotteWebb 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Article sanctions and preemptive warningsEdit

I've noticed a trend recently of people creating templated warnings that effectively say "Hi, you edited an article that is under probation/sanctions/etc. I'm not claiming you did anything wrong. But if you do, Bad Thingstm can be done to you without any further warning." IMO, no matter how nice we try to make these they will still make newcomers feel bitten and will discourage them from editing those articles. I am not confident that we can rely on these templates to be applied impartially, and not as an excuse for one side's POV-pushers to bite anyone who looks like they will be on the "other" side. Did I miss the consensus supporting this sort of preemptive warning? If consensus does support preemptive warnings, wouldn't it be more fair to have a bot give a standard warning to everyone editing the affected pages instead of relying on potentially biased application by those watching the pages? Anomie 13:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

History: I first noticed this issue when {{uw-balkans}} was brought up at WT:UTM; discussion there was opposed to the template. Future Perfect at Sunrise rewrote it to apply only after someone exhibits disruptive behavior and a subsequent TFD kept the revised version, but then someone moved it to {{uw-balkans2}} and recreated the preemptive version at {{uw-balkans}}. We now also have {{uw-9/11}} and {{uw-probation}}, and there may be more without the uw-* prefix. Further attempts to raise discussion at WT:UTM have not gathered any response. Anomie 13:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I should give a little background here. I developed {{uw-probation}} after a whole bunch of people (6-10) participated in various minor edit wars on the Obama Nation, which may or may not have been a violation of the terms of the Obama community article probation (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation) but in any event was making constructive work on the article all but impossible. I did not want to start tossing out warnings, or making judgment about who was violating probation and who was not - I am a non-admin, and I have been involved in article content. But I didn't think an admin could help because nobody had gotten warnings. The best I could think to do was to give a friendly reminder to all, without accusing them, that the article was on probation. With everyone on notice there would be no excuse for further edit warring, and if it does degenerate an admin can start enforcing things rather than being bogged down in concerns about who is on notice and who is not.
It is far to early to figure out the results - I think we should let this run for a while to see what happens. But after giving out 11 notices using the template, including one notice to myself, I got:
  • one somewhat miffed WP:DTTR type response (which I quickly patched up, and then edited the template to be more friendly
  • one slightly cynical comment that I was setting up people I disagreed with, so they would be blindsided by administrative sanctions
  • two or three expressions of appreciation
I think that already demonstrates that giving notices beforehand, instead of warnings after the fact, is a more civil, calming way to go about things. It is hard to imagine an involved party giving out this many warnings without considerably more unhappiness resulting. We will see if it has the intended result of ensuring self-compliance with article probation, and making it easier for administrators who want to enforce the terms to verify that everyone is on notice and that notices have been given effectively and fairly. A bot would be great but it would take some work to make sure the bot knows which articles are covered, when to start and stop, to avoid giving duplicate notices, to save all the notices given to a log, and to avoid giving notice to other bots, minor edits, administrators enforcing article probation, etc. If anyone wants to volunteer to program and run a bot though, that would be great. Wikidemo (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Community-based discretionary sanctions proposalEdit

Hello, I'm currently drafting a new, standardized community-based discretionary sanctions system, somewhat similar to Wikipedia:General sanctions (but, with approval, intended to supercede that system for future topic areas placed under probation). It is currently located at User:The Wordsmith/Community sanctions. Input would be appreciated in drafting a proposal ready for RFC. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions display formatEdit

I recently proposed a format for displaying community sanctions that does not rely on a table and thus allows linking to individual sections, e.g. WP:GS#Abortion. This has been reverted by Ncmvocalist without explanation. What do others think?  Sandstein  10:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein has once again unilaterally done something without having any regard for its purpose or the bigger picture; and he did it without discussing it with the Community. Yet again, he thought about discussion after his decision was reversed. Links, like WP:GS#BI, have always gone to the actual sanction pages themselves; this is merely a centralised location for users to know which sanction schemes are in place (or have been superseded) so that they can be juxtaposed. That is, in the original table format, they can be sorted by duration, name, type and area; I'd love to hear others opinions about Sandstein's ill-considered proposal which lacks this advantage. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I am a bit taken aback by the tone in the above message. Given that WP:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community has only six entries, sorting the table is surely not an important requirement. And several sanctions, such as those decided on in ANI threads, do not have a sanctions page to link to. That's why a link like WP:GS#Abortion would be a useful shorthand.  Sandstein  11:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Evidently, you failed to fully familiarise yourself with how these work or what the purpose of this page is, and this isn't a one-off. To put it more clearly for you, the abortion sanction does have a log of its own, and that is the page on which those sanctions live (in the same way that WP:GS/BI works - which is listed explicitly on the page, like several others). Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Did we abolish WP:BRD? Apparently it's not a good idea to "leav[e] a post on an article talk page which hasn't been used for a month" but it is unacceptable to not "discuss[] it with the Community" by, I assume, leaving a post on a talk page that hasn't been edited since October 2010. Anyway, {{anchor}} is probably good enough for this purpose, Sandstein, if ease of linking is what you are worried about. T. Canens (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Ohh myyy...when a certain admin has previously indicated that changes to Community pages like this one require discussion beforehand, perhaps users should not observe when that same admin has later made such a change and only started discussion afterwards. Similarly, when 5 users have been the only force behind imposing a sanction scheme on an article, perhaps those users should NOT be notified individually (instead, a post should be left on the article's talk page which hasn't been used for a month, despite the fact that article talk page is not the place to be discussing such sanctions anyway). Apparently the fact that Sandstein expects users to notify him individually when they think about lifting, or discussing enforcement actions he has imposed/enforced, is something that should be ignored altogether. Of course, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that AE admin Timotheus Canens imported an irrelevant out of context statement from WP:AN to this discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
"when a certain admin has previously indicated that changes to Community pages like this one require discussion beforehand" - where? I'm not aware of that. If you actually mentioned that, it may put your comment in a very different light. Otherwise, I mentioned your comment at AN because I came to here from there, and noted an apparent inconsistency between your positions. Maybe I don't have all the information, though. Enlighten me. T. Canens (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Committee"Edit

"Imposed by the Committee" - what is this supposed to mean? In all of WP is there a single (only 1) committee? Kernel.package (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re 1RREdit

Is there some reason that this term isn't wikilinked to wp:1RR in the sanctions? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Time limit on sanctionsEdit

I notice that some of the sanctions specify time limits, e.g. "Asmahan" says "for six months" and "Election" says "will review the situation in one year". I have two issues with this: I think it would be helpful for the summary if these were given as specific dates instead of or as well as durations; and unless I'm mis-reading things, both of these have expired (14 December 2009 plus six months, and 1 July 2006 plus one year). I hesitate to be bold and delete them without discussion. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC: How should community-imposed sanctions be handled?Edit

There is general agreement that community-imposed sanctions can mirror their ArbCom counterparts. However, when it comes to making good on these sanctions, the community's lack of a comparable framework for enforcement presents a unique logistical challenge. How should this be handled?   — C M B J   23:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Option 1: New enforcement noticeboardEdit

As one workaround, we could implement a noticeboard with standard procedures at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Sanction enforcement. Optionally, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement may be transcluded for ease of monitoring.

  • Support as proposer.   — C M B J   00:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I like the idea that the admins would be able to monitor both. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Today I was wondering what to do about all the chronic violations by the same editors of dozens of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles situation. Do we have to reopen the whole arbitration just to deal with WP:BLP? I hate going to WP:ANI and getting lost among all the other slugfests that have not had this level of discussion and community consensus. So this looks like a great solution. Someplace where just people who are more sensitive to the arbitration process will be likely to come. Got this from RfC bot but am going to post on Relevant I-P Collaboration page for more feedback. Thanks! CarolMooreDC 05:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Option 2: Uniform enforcement proceduresEdit

As a cheaper workaround, we could implement a common set of procedures here at Wikipedia:General sanctions that are to be enforceable at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

  • Support as proposer.   — C M B J   23:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

General CommentsEdit

  • I'm not really seeing the problem that needs to be fixed. To the extent that a sanction authorizes specific action, any Admin may already take such action. As is already the case, if there is a dispute about the action, it can be raised as any other complaint about an admin action would be at AN or AN/I. Requests for enforcement, where there is not already an admin dealing with it, are regularly made at AN/I. What "standard" procedures are needed? Monty845 22:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Special enforcement on biographiesEdit

At this diff. I've just discussed my objections - as the only person to comment - at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Administrator_instructions#Merge. In case anyone wants to check it out. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Coordinate with Wikipedia:Sanctions?Edit

Note: The page in question was moved to Wikipedia:Sanctions (essay) on 20 March 2014. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone more familiar with topic might make sure that these articles don't conflict, thus confusing editors. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-issue, there can be no confusion since Wikipedia:Sanctions is a WP:REDIRECT that brings up this page, i.e. Wikipedia:General sanctions. Try it, you get the same thing each time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Carolmooredc meant the page that is now at Wikipedia:Sanctions (essay). The history of the page was confused and was recently repaired. See the deletion log of WP:Sanctions for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ds/sanction move requestEdit

I have initiated a move request to move Template:Ds/sanction to Template:Ds/community sanction. The template has been deprecated with use for Arbitration Committee sanctions, and turned into a redirect to Template:Ds/alert, however the template is still being used for Community sanctions, with modification, since there is no documented sanctioning template for community sanctions. The move request is at Template talk:Ds.

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion/disagreement there as to whether community sanctions also include disretionary sanctions, which might be based on less than explicit language here, in case those with a better understanding want to correct any such things. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The answer to the question is no they don't. It's just that sometimes the community imposes discretionary sanctions which mirror the ArbCom version of them (however if you look at WP:GS/SCW the older version was summarised and duplicated there. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Clean-up this pageEdit

This is page is a mess. I think it needs to be clarified and cleaned-up. First of all, I think we should have separate pages for the Arb Com discretionary sanctions and community-issued general sanctions, to avoid confusion. I also think that replacing the chart with a simple text list (bullet points) would be easier to read. I'll begin a bold clean-up if no one objects here. RGloucester 15:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The sanctions from Arbcom and the community are already in separate sections. If you change anything due to Arbcom you should get approval from them. At least consult one of the clerks (I'm leaving a ping for User:Callanecc). Unclear why the chart should be hard to read. It's hard to update but (in my opinion) not hard to read. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It is messy. Essentially, the text gets squished into boxes that take-up more space but display the text in a less readable format. It is also hard to update. Even if we left the distribution of the sanctions alone (i.e. left both Arb and community sanctions here), it would make sense to toss the chart and replace it with a nice and clean bullet-point based list like the one at WP:AC/DS#Current areas of conflict. RGloucester 16:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The 'Current areas of conflict' is neater but contains less information. If you want a new format maybe you can make an example in your user space. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure. I'll draft one and post it here later. RGloucester 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
How about something like this? RGloucester 18:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I've read your new version, but don't see a clear advantage over the existing format. If you are planning to change anything relating to Arbcom's mandate, try posting at WT:Arbitration committee to get feedback. User:Callanecc, a clerk who has previously edited here, is on a break until mid-December. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a current sanction affecting Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articlesEdit

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Sanctions. Any help appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Update error to general sanctions?Edit

@Callanecc: at [2] I think you meant to update GenderGapTF sanctions but amended gamergate sanctions instead? --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification: WP:GS/ISIL sanctionsEdit

The 2015 San Bernardino shooting article has been tagged as falling within these discretionary sanctions [3] [4], on the basis of a Twitter post made by one of the perpetrators, in which she reportedly pledged allegiance to the caliph of ISIS:

The announcement came several hours after a revelation about Tashfeen Malik, the female shooter in the Wednesday massacre that left 14 dead and 21 wounded. She posted a pledge of allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook while the shooting was happening, three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told CNN.[1]

References

  1. ^ "San Bernardino shooting investigated as 'act of terrorism".

As it is not clear to me if the "broadly construed" language of the sanction would encompass the 2015 San Bernardino shooting article based on a pledge of allegiance to ISIS by one of the perpetrators, I ask for clarification on this matter. Note that the article is already covered by general sanctions under WP:NEWBLPBAN - Cwobeel (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A discussion regarding this matter is currently being held at the administrators' noticeboard. I would suggest that you join that discussion. RGloucester 16:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Scope of WP:GS/ISIL sanctionsEdit

Originally, in 2013, the SCW&ISIL sanctions were installed mimicing WP:ARBPIA (2008 version); however in 2015 ARBPIA sanctions were significantly altered and thus currently the claim in the list that SCW&ISIL "discretionary sanctions and 1RR that mimic WP:ARBPIA" or are "WP:ARBPIA-equivalent" is misleading. Propose to remove this notion and show SCW&ISIL sanctions as standing on their own to prevent confusion.GreyShark (dibra) 18:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on the need of sanctions on Kurdish–Turkish conflict topicEdit

I would like to invite editors on discussion over the need to set Kurdish–Turkish conflict general sanctions due to increased edit-warring on pages concerning Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present).GreyShark (dibra) 07:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanctions not in listEdit

1RR rule for Hurricane Ophelia (2017)Edit

There's an ongoing war over the image in the infobox. The disagreement started a few weeks ago:

It started to reach edit-war proportions a few days ago:

Despite efforts to reach consensus on the talk page, the edit-war has flared up again:

I suggest enacting the 1RR rule. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 18:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

1RR would need to imposed by the community following a discussion at WP:AN. However, in this instance it likely wouldn't work as the two users could just revert once per day. Instead I've fully protected the article for a week so that there can be a discussion and decision made on the talk page. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of article probation aspectEdit

Regarding this and this, Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation was still being used, as recently as this edit made by Bbb23 in May 2017. The men's rights matter is not simply a years-old controversy, something Noyster argued of the probation matters at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 December 30#Template:Community article probation. Jc86035 argued, "ArbCom discretionary sanctions should already apply to the articles related to American politics." Climate change deniers are also still an issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

note that I'm not sure if that was correct, since it only applies to "closely-related people" (I missed this part) and might exclude articles like Men's rights movement. Jc86035 (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Jc86035. What do you mean by "not sure if that was correct"? On a side note, since this page is on my watchlist, there's no need to ping me to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Referring to what I said about the discretionary sanctions. Jc86035 (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: Bbb23 restored the section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom discretionary sanctions also apply to climate change and to any gender-related dispute or controversy, as may be checked here. Only one page, Domestic violence, is now left in Category:Community probation: Noyster (talk), 10:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to repeal article probationEdit

I propose we remove the {{Men's rights article probation (portions)}} notice from Talk:Domestic violence (which doesn't even tell you which portions), and remove the Article probation subsection from this project page. This is an attempt to reverse instruction creep by abolishing an obsolescent and redundant statute: Noyster (talk), 10:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Support removal of community article probation in favor of discretionary sanctions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as this is not a community noticeboard, I don't think this decision can be made here. It would probably be more worthwhile to keep this discussion on WP: AN --Kyohyi (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Just saw with this edit by Primefac and by looking at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 9#Template:Men's rights article probation (portions), the template was deleted. Frietjes, Jc86035, Bbb23, SarekOfVulcan, Binksternet, Noyster and PC-XT all weighed in. It was suggested that Template:Ds/talk notice be placed on the aforementioned article talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The AN discussion has been archived now (here it is), but this one remains open and is, after all, the talk page of the page it is proposed to amend: Noyster (talk), 09:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that discussion (a head's up here would have been nice, despite the heads up above), but it's good to see that Swarm was concerned and highlighted the men's rights issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
As I understand it Flyer22, we can't just go through slapping a discretionary sanctions notice on the (already overburdened) talk pages of the articles where the old article probation message was removed. A page has to be specifically placed under restrictions by an admin using this procedure. Unless a page is listed here then it hasn't been placed under such restrictions. Now can we please go ahead and remove the Article probation section from this project page as proposed, or if that seems too 1984-like then at least make up a {{Historical section}} template and put that at the top of the section?: Noyster (talk), 11:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Noyster, articles like Domestic violence were already under a discretionary sanction, and for very good reason, as explained to you by Bbb23. If such articles are no longer protected, they need to be re-protected ASAP. No need to ping me to this page, by the way; it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to interject, mostly because I think there's an element of talk past the other going on here. An article that falls within discretionary sanctions doesn't necessarily mean there is a sanction on an article. It means that the article is considered to fall in an area where the discretionary sanction process is allowed. Ultimately, a template that says an article falls within an area where discretionary sanctions is meaningless. The reason being, is that the discretionary sanction process does not consider such a template meaningful for whether or not you can be sanctioned. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Kyohyi, your opinion on men's rights issues differs from mine; so I think there may be bias in our statements on this. Either way, when I stated "under a discretionary sanction" and "no longer protected," I indeed meant "falls within discretionary sanctions." The templates have proven useful in pointing disruptive editors to things that will not be tolerated. Some of them have stopped because of being pointed to such a tag on a talk page. And if they see that their disruptive behavior will not be tolerated via the tag, then all the better. I know what to do when dealing with disruptive MRAs regardless. If it takes me going to WP:ANI, that is where I will go. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The community is beyond tired of dealing with the skewed logic of MRAs, climate change deniers and similar nonsense editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Whereas the system of "community article probation" has been inactive and obsolete for some time, has been completely stripped from all articles on Wikipedia, has had its category emptied and subsequently deleted (and as such has already been de facto deprecated in full), and has been discussed without any objections or problems having been raised, I've gone ahead and removed article probation from this page, and relocated all remaining article probation sanctions to the "obsolete" section. Given that article probation were stripped from every article and nobody objected, there doesn't appear to be a need for any further discussion. Swarm 20:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Swarm, there was some objection in the sense of questioning why the templates were being removed and how to deal with this matter without them. Binksternet outright objected. And as has already been noted, Bbb23 was still enforcing the domestic violence and MRA matters. As seen here and here, so were others. Given what Noyster stated above with his "11:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)" post, what do you and/or SarekOfVulcan suggest we do to protect these articles? Noyster stated, "A page has to be specifically placed under restrictions by an admin using this procedure. Unless a page is listed here then it hasn't been placed under such restrictions." Are we to simply leave these pages unprotected until more disruption happens? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, as you saw, I myself objected strongly to the templates being removed as well. The template deletion resulted in the delisting of every article probation notification. It was only discussed after the fact, where it should have been discussed before. But the thing is, nobody could actually come up with any problems that have arisen from this. Domestic violence and MRA; those were apparently the only two relevant active sanctions to be deprecated. The answer provided to these concerns was that the GamerGate DS, under which "all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy" are covered. This point seems to be uncontroversial, therefore by "no objections", I mean "no outstanding concerns regarding unprotected articles". Swarm 18:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Swarm, it seems to me that "Domestic violence" and "Men's rights" needs their own sections at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. But if the GamerGate listing covers them, that's sufficient, of course. And I see that "Climate change" is already covered there. Like you, I was simply worried about these pages no longer being protected. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

GS procedural questionEdit

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

The new GS on Blockchain above brought this question to mind. The GS have a notification requirement before sanctions can be applied. With DS there are several classes of editors who are considered de facto notified. I am curious about whether the parties who proposed/!voted for GS are considered 'aware' analogous to how named parties are considered 'aware' of DS resulting from their ArbCom case.
I do not know that this is/has been/will be an issue but it is, as far as I could find, a hole in our procedures. Has this been discussed previously? Jbh Talk 15:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd hand out a notification template just to be sure. MER-C 16:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hand out the template. I'd also consider anyone who has logged a notification to be aware (just like anyone who issues the template is aware re: Ds/alert). Also remember that these should be logged manually. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It might be worthwhile to address GS cognizance sometime e.g. if one votes for them one is 'aware'; if one notifies another editor one is 'aware'; and whether cognizance ever 'expires' for GS/DS as it does for AC/DS after a year. It is pretty far down the list but I suspect at some point it would be good to rationalize GS/DS notice procedures with AC/DS. DS in general is confusing enough for most without having two sets of rules. Jbh Talk 01:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I moved this from AN. Has the issue of rationalizing GS/DS awareness procedures with AC/DS procedures been discussed? I would suggest adding something which brings GS/DS in line with AC/DS by saying:

  • If an editor !voted in the discussion establishing GS/DS they are considered 'aware'.
  • If an editor has notified another of GS/DS within the year they are 'aware'.
  • 'Awareness' should lapse as with AC/DS however without something like the 602 filter I do not know if it is practical to have them expire a year from notice. If manual logging is used it may be most practical to have them lapse at the start of a new year. Mass re-notification could be handles by bot but may be annoying. Adding GS/DS to the 602 filter may be an option as could be setting a separate filter.

Is this worthwhile to do or is it more process wonkery than useful? Jbh Talk 02:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to make discretionary sanctions actually work, by auto-delivering the required DS "awareness" noticesEdit

  FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: WP:Village pump (proposals)#Bot to deliver Template:Ds/alert
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Policy Guideline or whatEdit

UPDATE... This thread is based on WP:PAGES. Apparently this page has never been classified as a policy or guideline or essay or info page etc. How do you think it should be categorized? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • It shouldn't be. It just documents sanctions authorized elsewhere. Not everything needs a template. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Wrong, and regarding your revert of the tag to try to inspire wide input here, that is also wrong. Per WP:PAGES, stuff in the project namespace is to be organized according to what it is, and that implies classification is desirable.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
How would you classify WP:AELOG or WP:EDR, which are the closest equivalent pages that also have no template (and don't need one)? This page has existed for over a decade without any template. It doesn't matter one bit. I reverted the template because that template makes it seem like there is an actual dispute here when there isn't. This is just time wasting. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not time wasting. If you review discussion of the overhaul of DS in 2013/2014 I participated a lot. I'm prepping a proposal involving further streamlining with community sanctions. Then I noticed that I am not aware of any policy that "authorizes" community sanctions in writing. In the absence of something else that says "the community may impose community sanctions" this page's language "The community may also impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area..." reads like an authorization. If that power exists in writing elsewhere, it should be linked here. If that power is presumed to be implied or inherent in consensus process that should be explained here. Either way, the italicized text reads like a grant of authority. Forcing us to classify this page will help improve the page through proper community vetting and clarification of the text, by wikilinking the text with this power or explaining the implied nature of the power. Finally, obviously there is indeed a dispute, as evidenced by this discussion. Time wasting? Please AGF. Ultimate goal is to focus on notices and logging of community sanctions in context of reducing battle mentality and badge of shame, just like we did with DS. But I get ahead of myself. Point is, this is not "time wasting" though summary brush offs could be described that way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this discussion is a waste of time, even if done in good faith. If something has existed for over a decade without a banner, and every other comparable page exists without a banner, that means it doesn't need a banner. Please drop this. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Please answer the other question that came up... you say it summarizes things authorized elsewhere. Do you know of any place that authorizes community sanctions in writing, or is it your understanding such sanctions are implied or inherent in consensus? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Tony asked How would you classify WP:AELOG or WP:EDR Answer, I would call them "process pages" for which it seems we do not have any templates. The operative text describes such pages as "Process pages help facilitate application of the policies and guidelines governing all Wikipedia pages." I can see how a log does this. There is a blurry line between a mere log and something so explanatory that it might be the only place that says "The community may imposed topic area sanctions". If it is indeed the only such place, then 10 years or not, we should improve this bit of writing in ways I've described. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
If that's the case, they should be added to the category. Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Consensus. We don't need specific written authorization to do what we've always done (or done for at least 5 years, if not more.) Policy is descriptive of practice, not prescriptive. The document explaining standard discretionary sanctions is WP:AC/DS, and GS are typically authorized as standard DS appealable to the community rather than ArbCom and with different notice requirements. This page documents the sanctions the community or the committee has authorized and explains how they work to some degree, but it is not a policy or guideline.
Also, fwiw, since you seem to be wanting to reform these to be more like DS, GS and DS are identical at this point except for the appeal and notice requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging. Indeed, it is the different notice requirements that piqued my interest and I learned of the discrepency via a comment by SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) posted here. IN 2013/2014 a major component of the DS overhaul was to reduce the battle mentality swirling around the giving - and logging - of notices-badeges-of-shame. We worked long and hard to discuss ways to get away from this and the changes were incorporated into the DS overhaul. So I was very surpised to learn that the separate process for community sanctions would mirror DS in all ways except making a special reservation to have a separate notice process and to still log them. The text might say its informational, but I can understand how eds will receive a community notice (with logging) with a very high YUCK-factor, compared to the already-high yuck factor of conventional DS notice, where the only searchable records are talk page archives and system tags. In theory out of site logging (like the new DS process) should greatly reduce the undesired effects of giving notice and logging the notice like we did in the bad old days. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Of the admins I know who work in this area most frequently (@NeilN, Bishonen, and MER-C: and myself) I know at least one of them who actually prefer the logging procedure. I don't have a strong view either way, with a slight preference for the filter log. I also don't see it at all as a badge of shame because really the only people who look at these pages are a relatively small group of admins. I'd likely oppose it more because I think you're making a big deal out of nothing than anything else: don't fix what isn't broken, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your service! That said, your preference as core-admin doesn't really matter, in my opinion. What should matter is what the community thinks is most appropriate (including yourselves as individuals). SmokeyJoe's comment (linked earlier in this thread) is evidence that not everyone agrees with your sentiment, Tony. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
There have been no issues here for a decade. I don't see how a discussion about a bot to notify people of arb sanctions has any relevance to a much less frequently used process. Also, of course the preferences of the people who actually do the work matters. The preference of the community as a whole matters, but the people who work in an area are going to be the ones actually implementing it, and their preferences and explanations for why they prefer something a certain way should be given significant weight. Also, no, you have presented no evidence at all that this is actually broken. It works fine the way it is, and I oppose any attempt to further complicate a process that isn't broken. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Re your remark I don't see how a discussion about a bot to notify people of arb sanctions has any relevance to a much less frequently used process. the relevance is simply that SmokeyJoe's comment (already linked above) may have arisen in a DS discussion, but the substance of his remark is about a community sanctions experience. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I was pinged to this page. I have given these matters some thought, and am sure that the notifications, both logged and the usertalk page, have an element of "badge of shame", and that the notifications per se have a chilling effect. This is not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing is to deny reality. Editors approaching a behavioral bad line receive these notifications, and it is a chilling effect on their bad behaviours. It's true. It is usually desirable, the editor should be made aware of the seriousness of the matter, and that there may be consequences. Open questions of importance may include: who is a proper person to formally notify their fellow editor. There are gaming possibilities here.
Also of concerned is the explicitly "indefinite" durations common to the Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions. I think that sanctions should have a default sunset, maybe 12 months, if the discussion demonstrating consensus did not contain an explicit consensus for duration. The process of Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community_sanctions should be regularly compared and contrasted with kangaroo court. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Why does it matter how this page is pigeonholed? It will not change or otherwise constrain how we handle GS in practice. If the page must have some template on it then classify it as we do our other 'behavior control' pages WP:CBAN and WP:BLOCK i.e. as a policy and be done with it. I can see no benefit to a protracted discussion – they are not mere guidelines and creating some other box just for GS brings no more clarity than simply leaving things as they are and have been for years. Jbh Talk 18:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree! We should propose it as a policy and have it subjected to wide community consensus. That's a great idea. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
No. That is the precise opposite of what I was trying to communicate. GS already have consensus. If you want them to be tagged as a policy then just place the template. If not then just leave things as they are. Jbh Talk 19:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
<ec> Sorry, Jbhunley, I guess the last part was rhetorical flourish which I stupidly took as a serious option. I didn't mean to misrepresent your comment! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Or even better: do nothing and let it be, which, correct me if I’m wrong, Jbhunley, seems to be the first thing you were suggesting. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Ain't broke; Don't fix it. I see nothing constructive in what was proposed and no actual reason or benefit beyond 'it needs a template' has really been presented. Jbh Talk 19:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Re, rare process.... in the prior part of this debate, the point was made that CS is a rare thing. That would appear to be confirmed by a cursory peek at Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community_sanctions, which only lists six active decisions total. However, four of them are from years prior to 2018, while two of them are less than 12 weeks old. Blockchain and cryptocurrency on 22 May 2018 and Professional wrestling 22 June 2018 ). This alternative method of imposing discretionary sanctions without troubling to go through the arbs seems to be gaining popularity, so that's another reason to ask for community review. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The community has been able to place whatever sanctions that consensus can be formed for ab initio. Recently there has been a trend to use the terms of WP:AC/DS to rationalize the two sanction regimes to make things simpler. The Arbitration Committee exists to place sanctions the community can not agree on so the idea of "without troubling to go through the arbs" is completely backwards. First the community tries to form a consensus to solve a problem including by placing sanctions. If and only if the community is unable to resolve the situation does the Arbitration Committee enter into the equation. Jbh Talk 19:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for calling attention to priciple that arbs = last resort. I'm more involved with this on the prevention up-front side, trying to help eds be aware without taking offense or being scared off. So yes, that part of my remark was backwards. Observation that limited data suggests rapid rise in popularity of CS as a tool is unchanged, however. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BIKESHED, there is no need for a heap of discussion about what to call this page. Not everything fits nicely in a pigeon-hole and there is no need to put a pretty box at the top of every page. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Per Johnuniq, the categorization of best practices is a meaningless endeavour. The desire of people to decide on a heirarchy of best practices, that policies outrank guidelines, or that anything called an essay is meaningless and can be safely ignored as though it didn't exist, is bullshit. Either a) something should be done a certain way or b) it shouldn't. It doesn't matter what you call it, either you do it the right way or you don't. In that vein, we don't have to call this anything. If its useful, people will agree to do it. If it isn't, people won't. The name of it doesn't matter.--Jayron32 11:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Spoken like a battled-scarred veteran who was not chased off, like everyone else in this thread. Newbies deserve a clear explanation and info pages that super easy to navigate and comrehend the first time their BP spikes when they run into sanctions process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful to clarify how much authority this page actually carries. For example the Discretionary Sanctions subsection describes a process established by Arbcom, and editors should refer to WP:ACDS to resolve any discrepancies. –dlthewave 18:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This page carries exactly no authority. It's a centralized location for logging and keeping track of the many sanctions that exist on Wikipedia, but each individual one exists by its own individual authorization from either Arbcom or community consensus. The sanctions don't actually derive their authority from the page itself, nor are they discussed, implemented, or modified here. It's just a list. Swarm 19:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That's true and obviously not true. Authority derives from consensus, consensus derives from practice, if this page continues to be in practice an important part of any process, it receives some authority status for that process. "It's just a list"? That is immediately demonstrably false, there is prose, the prose asserts implicit facts with implicit authority. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
One thing clearly evident in the idealist's non-authority of this page is the primacy afforded to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. This is a shift from the old principles of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This is exactly why WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is a thing. There's literally no reason to try to "classify" this page as any particular thing. It's just a list of sanctions, with details explained on a case-by-case basis within the list itself. This is ridiculous, go contribute something meaningful to the project, anything. Swarm 18:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
It's more than just a list, though. The top sections describe the various types of sanctions and, to my understanding, Newsandeventsguy would like to clarify the status of these descriptions. –dlthewave 19:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
If it weren't for beaucratic inertia, we would split this into a straightforward log (classified as a WP:Processpage) and a separate thing with the descriptive text classified as a WP:INFOPAGE. Either way this is not a policy page and if we tidied up as I have described it would still not be a policy page. Either way, I think, it is no more binding than an essay... and info pages are explicitly defined as being like essays when it comes to policies and guidelines. Some will say the desire to clean up is itself a bit of beaucratic busywork. However, the only eds who are likely to say this are old hands. I view this as a highly valuable userification effort for those new to the sanctions regimen. How? As I explained earlier, with no classification at all, the wording sure sounds like God wrote it on the stone tablets given to Moses. That's not the case. Do I have diffs showing anyone got confused? No. However, absence of evidence does not negate common sense, and prevention of confusion seems worth doing if it won't hurt anything. No one objecting has shown how harm would result. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Okay, so because the page has explanatory/informational/descriptive text, it should be formally, organizationally classified with a formal hierarchical "status", or, to put it more simply, it needs a banner at the top like most WP space pages do. To this, I will repeat the sentiments expressed by everyone else here: it doesn't need this, the given reasons that it supposedly needs this are not convincing, and attempts to aggressively pigeonhole pages that do not necessarily fit into any particular category and yet have existed without any issues for over a decade are pointless wastes of time. If you need clarification on anything or have any questions, you may ask here, or anywhere, and we'll be happy to provide the clarification you so seek, but that's not what this is. This is a fairly sad attempt at bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, and it's a little, well, stupid. Sorry, but there is literally an implication made above that newbies leave the project because pages don't have templates. That's stupid, and just goes to show that you don't have any actual reasons to "clarify" or "classify" or "categorize" or however you want to euphemize the act of putting a template at the top of this page. Swarm 20:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No, newbies leave the project for many reasons and one subset is bad experience with sanctions. Its hard to run and RFC for input from former editors. Its commonsense that anything which helps reduce the ickniness some experience with the process is a good thing. That's not stupid, that's a good faith effort at editor retention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been hoping to create a "plain English" explanation of the DS process, since WP:ACDS is quite dense and bureaucratic, and it seems that this page is already set up to do that. If we're going to direct new editors (or anyone) here, it would be useful for them to know whether or not this is the official source of the policy. –dlthewave 20:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
D, see also WP:Sanctions (essay). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Scope of Gamergate sanctions "any gender-related dispute or controversy"Edit

General sanctions from the Gamergate decision apply to "any gender-related dispute or controversy". Would it apply to E. J. Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where there are disputes over Levy's choice of pronouns and descriptors in her book upcoming book about James Barry (surgeon), as well as disputes over how Levy identifies?

For context, see: Flood, Allison (February 18, 2019). "New novel about Dr James Barry sparks row over Victorian's gender identity". The Guardian.. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "General sanctions".