Wikipedia talk:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions

Thoughts/Changes

Thanks @Dreamy Jazz for getting this started. Some thoughts on reading this:

• I believe that people have to use our alerts so or any message that conveys the contentious topics restriction is active. is not correct.
• I think it might make sense (perhaps in a collapsed box if we're worried about length) to include the default standard restrictions. As noted certain areas can have more but since some are universal why not list?
• I did some CE around expiry.
• Sitewide blocks having CT protection for 1 year is status quo and so probably doesn't need to be in a list of changes?
• I have added some content to the Appeals section.
  • I don't know if it makes sense to have the 3 standards listed out verbatim but it felt weird not including them so I did. I have no attachment to this format though.

Courtesy ping to the drafters @L235 @Wugapodes @CaptainEek. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

1. From Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Implementation/Merged § Awareness of contentious topics it says When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using the {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} template. Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert ... When alerting an editor who has previously received any contentious topic alert, the {{alert}} template may be used, but any message that conveys the contentious topic designation is acceptable.
2. Sure. Adding the standard set is a good thing, though putting in a collapse box is probably a good idea.
3. Thanks
4. Ah, I missed that being the case.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Explicit notices

I would like to see that "CT" notices are always explicitly required at the page level where it is in effect, to ensure there can be no room for interpretation that a given page might be CT because it is somehow related to a CT topic area, and thus a single admin can ban/block an editor on the spot (this has happened to me). I disagree with abolishing the 12-month requirement for awareness alerts, and I believe that admins should be strongly urged to first warn editors before imposing sanctions in their sole discretion, regardless of the editor's awareness. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla your comments will get wider consideration if you post them at the currently happening discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Contentious topics procedure now in effect. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

"recently"

it would be helpful to know precisely when arbcom adopted the contentious topics procedure instead of a vague statement that it was "recently". Daddyelectrolux (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)