Wikipedia:Contentious topics/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Motion
Status as of 01:53 (UTC), Wednesday, 3 July 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). |
 | Welcome to the Phase II consultation for WP:DS2022. This page contains draft language for the purposes of the consultation page. It is presented for informational purposes and should be read in conjunction with the notes at the top of the consultation page. The pages in this series are:
|
Main motion[edit]
- Adoption of new procedure
The contentious topics procedure (draft [PERMALINK]) is adopted and supersedes the discretionary sanctions procedure with immediate effect. Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure.
- Additional provisions
The provisions listed below in #Procedural changes are adopted.
The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.
The Arbitration Committee invites editors to request that the Committee conduct a review of the contentious topics system one year after the enactment of this motion.
Procedural changes[edit]
- Enforcement templates and procedural documents
The following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
Enforcement templates and procedural documents
Arbitrators and arbitration clerks may, after consultation with the Arbitration Committee, update and maintain templates and procedural documents related to arbitration enforcement processes (including the contentious topics system).
- Arbitration enforcement noticeboard scope
The following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
Arbitration enforcement noticeboard scope
The arbitration enforcement noticeboard may consider:
- requests for administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a special enforcement action [LINK] imposed by an administrator,
- requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors [LINK] who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic [LINK],
- requests for page restrictions [LINK] (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in contentious topics,
- appeals against arbitration enforcement actions (including special enforcement actions in a contentious topic), or
- requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.
For all other matters, including content disagreements or the enforcement of other community-imposed sanctions, editors should use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal decisions made directly by the Arbitration Committee, editors should submit a request for clarification or amendment.
- Logging
The "Logging" subsection of the Arbitration Committee's procedures is amended to read as follows:
Arbitration enforcement actions (including special enforcement actions in contentious topics) must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action. Administrators who change or revoke a special enforcement action must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.
If an administrator forgets to log an arbitration enforcement action, it is not valid until it has been logged.[1]
It is important for administrators to unambiguously and clearly label their actions as arbitration enforcement actions (such as in the block summary, page protection summary, edit summary, or talk page message announcing the action, whichever is appropriate).[2]
References
- ^ Other administrators may log the arbitration enforcement action on behalf of the original administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".
- ^ If an enforcing administrator clearly intends to take an arbitration enforcement action but forgets to label their action, other administrators may label the action (such as through a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".
- Expectations of administrators
The "Expectations of administrators" subsection of the Arbitration Committee's procedures is amended by striking the following text: Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. However, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement. 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.
In its place, the following text is inserted: When an enforcement case is not clear-cut, administrators are encouraged to seek input from their colleagues at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard before acting. Administrators should not act contrary to an emerging consensus of uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
[THIS SECTION NOT YET VETTED BY BARKEEP49]