Status as of 12:27 (UTC), Monday, 23 September 2024 ()
- The final decision has been posted and announced.
- The initial implementation period has concluded and the updated procedure has come into effect.
- Any editors interested in the ongoing implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page.
- To be notified about updates, subscribe to the update list.
|
The revision process will be conducted in four phases:
The revision process was managed by drafting arbitrators designated by the Arbitration Committee (CaptainEek, L235, Wugapodes). |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Thanks to everyone for participating. From this discussion we observe a consensus that Discretionary Sanctions serves a purpose and remains effective in creating conditions for high quality information to be presented to our readers. There was a minority but non-negligible number of number of editors who question whether DS is effective in quelling disruption, has no definable purpose, and who suggest DS may instead be effective at creating chilling effects which discourage editors from contributing in those areas. Several editors who felt this way note the lack of serious study (both qualitative and quantitative) about its impact on article content.
- There was a consensus that the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard is effective, on the whole, in addressing issues. Reasons for this included word limits and sectioned discussions. A number of editors also specifically cited the ability to topic ban disruptive editors as one of the ways DS is effective. The same reasons cited for this effectiveness were also named by a number of editors as an issue in that it creates a barrier to participation and/or otherwise advantages editors who can understand its legalistic requirements. This fits with an overall consensus that the barrier to entry with DS is very high, for editors in those areas and for admin patrolling them. Clearer documentation is plainly called for. There was also a consensus that AWARENESS is broken with a variety of suggestions offered on how to fix it.
- Finally we note that several editors suggested, in sentiments shared by the drafting arbitrators, that the BLP DS ends up working differently and perhaps has a different purpose than other DS. We also note that other pieces of feedback, which didn't rise to the level of consensus or significant minority viewpoint, were considered and may be included in our draft recommendations.
- Based on this consultation, the drafting arbitrators expect that the following may be among what is presented to the community for feedback in Phase 2:
- A stated purpose for DS
- A revised name for DS
- A LEAD section on the DS procedures page
- A complete overhaul of AWARENESS and alerts
- A lessening of first mover advantage
- A change in individual administrator authority
- Aligning the mechanism around indefinite sanctions across DS
- Administrator instructions
- A "DS basics" information page
- Sub-pages for each DS topic area
- A re-examination of a number of specific DS areas
- Based on this consultation, the drafting arbitrators expect that the following may be among what is presented to the community for feedback in Phase 2:
- This list remains subject to change and is also not a complete list of what will be presented for feedback.
- Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 | Note from the drafting arbitrators: Please do not feel compelled to participate in all of the sections of this consultation. We expect that the first four questions in the "open-ended feedback" section will be where most editors contribute; the "section-by-section feedback" is designed for those who are already familiar with the discretionary sanctions system and have comments about specific parts. |
All community members are encouraged to participate in this consultation, which is the first step of the Arbitration Committee's 2021 discretionary sanctions revision process. The first section of this consultation asks general questions about discretionary sanctions and editors' experiences with them, and the second section asks for feedback on more specific elements of the discretionary sanctions system. Please participate in either or both of the sections, but do not duplicate your comments in multiple sections; the Committee will fully consider feedback whether it occurs in the open-ended section or the specific feedback section. Comments may be moved between sections by a clerk or arbitrator when appropriate.