Wikipedia talk:Contentious topics/2021-22 review/Implementation

Implementation checklist

We definitely welcome anyone interested in helping with the process of implementing the proposals. My initial sense is that we would especially benefit from folks who could help with updating the old DS templates. I don't have a specific list of things that need updating yet, but am working on it. If you're interested, I would be really grateful if you could reply here. Thanks! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I can be of big help, but I'd like to participate where doing so makes sense. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started on at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Implementation/To do and transcluded it above using {{To do}}. — Wug·a·po·des 00:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KevinL: If by "updating templates" you mean changing their text from the "discretionary sanctions" language to the "contentious topics" language, I would be happy to help with that, though I would need the guidance of a list as I am mostly unfamiliar with the template system. Dayirmiter (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle isn't mentioned. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller I don't think Twinkle does anything with DS at the moment? Pinging in case I'm wrong and just not familiar with that feature. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 I use it to give DS alerts. I mentioned this on the clerks mailing list and User:Primefac agreed. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug - I figured that's what you were saying. But I don't see where/how to do that in Twinkle having looked before I replied the first time. Can you direct me where in Twinkle this exists? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb script, which acts as an extension to Twinkle but isn't technically part of it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the script, but it's half broken for me at least due to how it interacts with the edit filter for DS alerts. Apparently DW gets it to work. Izno (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If clerks and arbs have the capacity and inclination to be helpful we should. That said from my perspective and having thought about this a tad more, the list of things that arbcom controls that need updating is long. Not also feeling responsible for things made outside of arbcom control feels reasonable to me? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me although it does give me an error message, but that’s just a nuisance, nothing more. Doug Weller talk 08:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are we wanting Template:Ds and subpages to be moved, or new ones created? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question and will involve design choices. No matter what we decide, I think we should ensure that the current Template:Ds templates keep their functionality, either as redirects to or wrappers over the new CT templates. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To allow drafting without immediately affecting the currently-used Ds templates, we should probably create copies that can be history-merged later. Their location, though, isn't clear. Template:Ct exists for cycling. WP:CT/AI currently point towards non-existent subpages of that template. Having a short name like "Ds" would be beneficial as the templates are placed manually. "Template:Arbct" perhaps? Or could we make using {{alert}} the default in all instructions, and place the code at Template:Contentious topics and subpages? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to standardize on using the alert template in the instructions, as it is intended to help unify the instructions for contentious topics, whether identified by the arbitration committee or the community. isaacl (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea to use {{alert}} as the wrapper template in general. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now created at Template:Contentious topics. Standardization/simplicity:

Template:Ds/alert becomes
- Template:Contentious topics/alert ({{alert}}),
- Template:Contentious topics/alert/first ({{alert/first}}),
- Template:Contentious topics/alert/DS ({{alert/DS}});
Template:Ds/topics becomes Template:Contentious topics/list;
Template:Ds/topics/table becomes Template:Contentious topics/table.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, Dreamy Jazz, L235: I'd like to move {{Editnotice contentious topic}} to {{Contentious topics/editnotice}}, overwriting the target and leaving a redirect behind. Would this be okay with you? Alternatively, we could redirect in the other direction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I think my original names were terrible anyway, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I decided to make them. — Wug·a·po·des 16:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Definitely that naming scheme is better. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved them. Also moved Template:Editnotice contentious topic page restriction to Template:Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice to standardise that too. Happy for that to be moved around as seen fit. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like this scheme. As to the original question, I imagined we would develop them separately and then redirect the DS pages all at once. — Wug·a·po·des 16:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal number 9

I will be creating the page at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions (similar to how WP:AFD has it). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dreamy Jazz! Looping in @El C: is there anything that you'd like to see in the administrator instructions? This isn't urgent – we can add/change this after the initial implementation much more easily than the actual procedure text itself. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Kevin. It might take me a few days to review the entire thing and reply to it as I'll probably be away from home or in transit throughout much of the weekend. Wait for me before implementing! But I can tell you now that I'm against Awilley's Enforced BRD restriction, largely because it approaches reverts (in whole and part) too exotically, too confusingly.

As far beyond-WP:1RR restrictions, I think only Consensus required should be used, because it is truly an enforced WP:BRD / enforced WP:ONUS, thus is much more intuitive. It should also be specified that any beyond-1RR sanctions should: 1. Be used sparingly. And relating to that; 2. Only after 1RR had proven insufficient — not a prefect analogy, but similarly to how WP:SEMI and WP:ECP are generally approached in the protection policy (i.e. #As escalation from semi-protection). Thanks again! El_C 04:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Current areas of conflict" at WP:AC/DS

Will the "Current areas of conflict" section that's currently shown on WP:AC/DS be included in Wikipedia:Contentious topics? If not, where will the list of the areas under CT be placed? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CT procedure page

Is there a draft location where the CT page is being created? Also will the drafting arbitrators be in charge of creating this? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found it at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Implementation/Merged. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The drafting arbitrators will be responsible for final approval of the merged text but clerks are very welcome to make edits before final approval :) KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AC/CT or CT?

WP:CT exists for "citation templates"; WP:DS exists for "deletion sorting". Thus, WP:AC/CT should probably be the main shortcut, and the page should probably be located at WP:Arbitration Committee/Contentious topics. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although the shortcut links have been like that, I've seen several references in the process to "Wikipedia:Contentious topic". Preferably, I'd prefer if it's at Wikipedia:Contentious topics because I always thought that the "Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/" prefix in the title for the DS procedure page made things confusing for newer users alerted to the DS system (as they may have never heard of the Arbitration Committee). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed it would be at AC/CT, but I actually kind of like "Wikipedia:Contentious topics" – it goes nicely with the goal of simplification. But it does raise the question, what shortcuts are available?

WP:AC/CT is of course available
WP:ACCT is in use but probably OK to retarget given it's only linked a little bit
WP:CT is probably not retargetable, but perhaps disambiguable?
WP:CONTENTIOUS goes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch § Contentious labels; there's also Wikipedia:Contentious.
WP:CONTOPICS is available, but pretty long for a shortcut
WP:CONTOP is available but a bit strange? Probably a good one to snag.

KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also available: WP:CTOP, WP:CTOPICS. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with not making a subpage of the arbitration committee page. Assuming the community follows suit, there's just going to be (mostly) one basic process, with different ways of identifying contentious topics. (Shortcuts generally turn into jargon amongst English Wikipedia editors and personally I think the use of jargon where it doesn't add additional expressiveness should be discouraged, but I understand why many like shortcuts and thus why so many abound for the same topic.) isaacl (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can also have WP:CTR (contentious topic restrictions), WP:CTFAQ (contentious topics FAQs), and WP:CTADMINS (the admin instructions for CTs). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I understand why editors like shortcuts, but specifically replying to my post with more shortcuts feels like thumbing your nose ;-) isaacl (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page can be wherever but the shortcut used in ArbCom templates and such should be WP:AC/CT. The major benefit is that it helps distinguish arbcom-specific traffic from any future community-related use (a hacked version of a referral link basically). This helps future-proof the solution in case arbcom use and community use ever diverge, we reform our CT process again, or something needs disambiguated on our end---arbcom can always point its AC/CT redirect wherever it needs and know all the right pages will be affected without needing to worry about fixing/disambiguating hundreds of redirects. It also keeps up consistency with the previous pattern. Redirects are cheap, we can create whichever we want and see what everyone converges on later, but for now, the fewer stylistic changes we make the better. The people who actually use the DS-now-CT system (sysops) are used to the AC/DS format and smart enough to guess that AC/CT will work---training everyone to use not only a reformed system but also a new naming scheme creates needless social complexity in an already complex migration. — Wug·a·po·des 00:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you make a good point here and WP:AC/CT should exist. But after reading this I suddenly thought that WP:CT/AC should be our main way of referring to it? This makes clear whose CT it is (AC's) while allowing the community to adopt WP:CT/COM or just WP:CT. But I'm just the peanut gallery here and really will defer to the decisions those charged with making these decisions decide. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only issue with that ordering is that it implies WP:CT should be related to Wikipedia:Contentious topics when it is currently Wikipedia:Citation templates. Kevin seems to be onto a similar line of thinking based on some of his CTR, CTFAQ, and CTADMINS suggestions, so it seems like an extensible solution. The number of uses of WP:CT is actually really low, and we can probably argue for it being disambiguated. There are 564 links to WP:CT but nearly 2500 to WP:CITET; WP:CT drove less than 4% of traffic to WP:Citation templates last year, and got 200 fewer hits than WP:CITET (pageview stats). There's also three other project pages with claims to WP:CT listed in the header Wikiproject Connecticut, Colon Trick, and Cleanup templates. So I think we can make a strong argument at RfD to disambiguate that page.

That's a long way of saying yeah, I think we can make the CT/AC format work — Wug·a·po·des 01:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the shortcut links will de facto become new jargon, I'm more inclined not to overload the term CT. Plus two-letter jargon terms aren't intuitively comprehensible to the uninitiated. I know some people think that editors should be expected to be indoctrinated in English Wikipedia jargon in order to be a full member of the community. Even so, I think jargon is only needed when it adds expressiveness by giving a concise, readable label to a specific concept that would otherwise take many words to describe. I feel "contentious topics" is concise enough to facilitate its use in regular sentences, so that an extremely short jargon term isn't needed.

All that being said, I agree it's workable to make AC a subpage to whatever is chosen as the top-level redirect page. isaacl (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with the idea of a AC subpage to Wikipedia:Contentious topics (i.e. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arbitration Committee for where the new procedure is placed. If the community is wanting to adopt the new name and thus change it from WP:GS, it makes sense to keep them together as subpages of a common title. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:General sanctions page describes the various types of sanctions that apply to all editors, as opposed to those that apply to a single editor. Thus this page will still remain, with updates to describe general sanctions that can be issued for contentious topics identified by the arbitration committee, and assuming the community aligns with this terminology, by the community as well. isaacl (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally still somewhat skeptical of the CT/AC proposal – I would much rather have either WP:Contentious topics or AC/CT. And yes, "general sanctions" are a superset of:

Contentious topics/former DS
community-authorized DS
topicwide restrictions imposed by ArbCom or the community

The term "GS" is overloaded in common parlance and one hope with this reform is to make that language easier (e.g. "community-designated contentious topics"). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with having a WP:Contentious topics page, as I previously mentioned. My comments regarding an AC subpage were only with respect to a redirect page. isaacl (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look again and thought about this for longer; I now agree that "Wikipedia:Contentious topics" is a better title than "Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Contentious topics", even if it's just for simplicity when writing the full page name in messages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree and think that WP:CT should link to Wikipedia:Contentious topics. The citation templates pages can be kept with WP:CITET or WP:CIT, both of which work fine for it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Converting it to a disambiguation page as suggested above seems fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice 500/30

Both current and proposed editnotices make reference to 500/30 as a requirement (See {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} & {{Editnotice contentious topic page restriction}}). I asked about this on the template talk and was directed here. My question is: Should this not be changed to explicitly mention WP:XC instead? For example: "You must be logged-in, with an extended-confirmed account". While I get the whole clear and concise formatting that is required. However explicitly stating the required 30 days 500 edits, is just inaccurate for the requirements to edit under these restrictions. The page protection requires XC not 500/30, and WP:ARBECR requires XC not 500/30. And this ARCA request also states that 500/30 isn't relevant. Terasail ^[✉️] 16:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to counter some respones from Wugapodes on this: few editors know or care about the "extended-confirmed" jargon. The protected page notice (MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext) Uses such terminology and never mentions the 500/30 requirements, and I am not aware of any controversy over this. The people who get ECP on an alternate account are already experienced enough to understand this, and the people who have it removed for disruption know why they can no longer edit.. Two points on this: Just because it could be interpreted by an experienced editor, should incorrect information be provided to begin with? And the idea of the "long inactive admin going against policy" is quite well discussed but what about returners who have had perms removed? They might edit after reading the edit notice since they have over 500 edits only to be taken to a noticeboard for not being XC? Terasail ^[✉️] 16:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just seems simpler to provide correct information is what I am trying to say. Terasail ^[✉️] 16:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A point in favor of calling it ECR is that unlike when 500/30 was created, the remedy now is explicitly tied to the community's innovation of ECR. So if the community were to ever change what defines ECR, the restriction would automatically update with the community's change. That said the goal is to prioritize understanding for those who might be confused with the expectation that ArbCom will update things if things change so I would continue to use the most editor friendly, rather than technically correct or futureproof, version of the phrasing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just add "(extended-confirmed protection)" at the end of the list item in the editnotice. That way anyone who wants to know more can follow the link. isaacl (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ct

@ToBeFree and Dreamy Jazz: who I think have been working on this. We make reference to subpages of {{Ct}} like {{Ct/alert}}, but {{Ct}} is a (highly visible) cycling related template. We should either avoid using that (pseudo)namespace or formally migrate that template. — Wug·a·po·des 23:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had overlooked two links to this template. {{alert}} is used instead. There won't be a "Ct/alert". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also {{Ct/aware}} and {{Ct/page restriction editnotice}}. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gone and links re-targeted. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merci! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Remedy instructions and exemptions" et. al.

The new CT talk notice does not contain the "Remedy instructions and exemptions" collapse box used in {{American politics AE}} or shown in the mock ups in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Templates.

Also missing is the footnotes for each restriction shown in the editnotice as detailed in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Templates. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should these be added or are they unnecessary detail? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction"

Special:Diff/1132921624 is the drafters' first draft attempt to implement "Amendment: Limiting blocks to one year". However, the resulting appeals language is kind of clunky:

Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b]

The contentious topic restriction was imposed by a single administrator and it was imposed or last renewed more than a year ago;

The contentious topic restriction was a sitewide block and it was imposed more than a year ago; or

An appeal is successful (see below).

Would the following be better or worse? Or any other suggested copyedits?

Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[c] or is no longer an administrator;^[d]

The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or

the restriction was an indefinite block; or

An appeal is successful (see below).

Suggestions welcome. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second looks better to me. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion for the second option: change the first level list to be a numbered list, change the introductory paragraph to end in "if and only if one of the following three conditions are met:", and remove "; or" from the second subitem (that is, change the text to "the restriction was an indefinite block"). isaacl (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

isaacl, why numbered (ordered)? If there's no meaning behind the order of the items, the default is to use an unordered list. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafters are currently tinkering with:

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[e] or is no longer an administrator;^[f] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
the restriction was an indefinite block.

KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "or" at the end of the first bullet point isn't strictly needed, and omitting it may be worthwhile to avoid triggering readers into thinking about it. isaacl (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal for a numbered list was to distinguish it from the sublist. I am a strong proponent of using unordered lists wherever possible, but I appreciate that sometimes people want to number list items that have no inherent relationship to be able to refer to the points. In this case I wanted to number them to clarify which set of conditions were being referenced.

That being said, with the elimination of the final bullet point, and thus removing the dangling "or" at the end of the sublist, I think an unordered list is sufficient. isaacl (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Example case page amendment

Here is what I think a case page amendment could look like on implementation day. Any suggestions? We'll have to do this on the ~30 DS topics currently authorized. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Implementation day"

Is there a plan when Implementation day will be? I'm aware that the month worth authority granted to the drafting arbitrators is running out, so I presume it has to be soon. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks requiring motions

Harmonizing "Standard provision: appeals and modifications" with the changes made by CT2022. See Special:Permalink/1134473767 for one draft.
@Awilley's concerns re: enforced BRD; see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Changes_to_sanctions?.

Please update the list above as required. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

Thanks to everyone that has been working on this substantial change to AE. I'm still trying to come up to speed on the changes, I can't guarantee that I am going to do things correctly on my next foray into a CT, but I shall do my best. Perhaps an example might help somewhere? Also, there are still a few places which say solely "[LINK]", it would be a good idea to put these on a list for update, but I am not quite sure where?.... Thanks! --El on ka 16:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[3] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[4] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[5] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[6] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]