 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: AE doesn't care about who is right. It's all about who is being disruptive |
For an AE complaint to gain traction you will need to demonstrate evidence of wrongdoing on the part of other users. Edits that you might personally disagree with are not wrongdoing. Examples of actual poor behaviour might fall under some of the following headings (this is not an exhaustive list but simply the kind of thing that has come up at AE recently):
- Personal attacks, incivility or unnecessarily personalising disputes in an area subject to discretionary sanctions. This includes playing the man and not the ball and discussing the editor rather than the edit. i.e. "you are an idiot for making that edit", rather than "that edit is wrong because ..." Sanctions might easily be applied for these behaviours as they raise the overall editing temperature and make it impossible to edit collaboratively.
- Deliberately editing against consensus i.e. trying to force a particular pattern/statement where there is a clear consensus against this. This does not mean that edits are prohibited when consensus is unclear but, if disputed there needs to be a discussion rather than (my next point).
- Edit, move or revert warring. If you dispute an edit then the next step is to discuss and secure consensus. Deliberately editing in a way that undoes the disputed edit rather than having that discussion is almost a guarantee of getting sanctioned. This doesn't mean that you can undo the edit as soon as you start the discussion. All parties should wait until the consensus on the point is clear.
- Canvassing - if you notify anyone of discussion then it is canvassing unless the person notified is previously uninvolved and their views are unclear or you notify everyone. If the people you notify are those who might reasonably be expected to support your position then it is canvassing, and in an area subject to DS, likely to get you sanctioned.
- Forumshopping / Raising spurious complaints. Exporting disputes to external venues is extremely disruptive to the uninvolved editors, unless there is a clear issue that needs action. It takes time to read and process the issues and that is time that could be spent making productive edits.
- Walls of text/Controlling discussions. In a collaborative environment, edits posting lots of tl;dr text kill discussion as does trying to control the discussion or reinterpret what other people said.
- Constantly relitigating issues where consensus is unclear. This is clearly designed to wear out other editors to allow you to "win".
- Battleground behaviour. Another classic, extremely personalising behaviour or assuming that you are in a war and that you will win by whatever means necessary.
- Mass edits to run around consensus. Notice the corollary, if mass editing was prohibited then we would not have AWB. What is prohibited in DS areas is multiple edits intended to push a particular perspective that is against consensus. Large numbers of edits over a long period of time do not count, especially if there is evidence of considering policy or discussing when disputed. The issue is trying to overwhelm discussion not making the numerous edits per se.
- POV pushing - editing in a way to advance a view that is not consistent with NPOV or subverts our sourcing or editing standards. i.e. all Jews are evil clearly isn't NPOV.
- BLP violations - obvious really.
- Revenge or retaliatory complaints. (subset of battleground).
- Anything else that reasonably could be taken to be disruptive and damaging to collaborative editing in the affected area.
For an AE complaint to gain traction the reviewing admins are going to need to see evidence that there has been this behaviour and extra points get given for providing this with diffs accompanied by neutral commentary of how the edit/action infringes one of the above. Keep it short. Minus points come from long ranty sections advancing what you think is right and why the other editor is wrong. AE does not care about content disputes, it is purely about actionable behaviour. Another major minus is the speck in your opponent's eye while editing with a massive beam in your own. If AE finds that the complaining editor is equally guilty of the poor behaviours then they are just as likely to get sanctioned. If their behaviour started the dispute or was worse it's quite common for them to end up with the stricter sanctions.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This page in a nutshell: AE doesn't care about who is right. It's all about who is being disruptive |
For an AE complaint to gain traction you will need to demonstrate evidence of wrongdoing on the part of other users. Edits that you might personally disagree with are not wrongdoing. Examples of actual poor behaviour might fall under some of the following headings (this is not an exhaustive list but simply the kind of thing that has come up at AE recently):
- Personal attacks, incivility or unnecessarily personalising disputes in an area subject to discretionary sanctions. This includes playing the man and not the ball and discussing the editor rather than the edit. i.e. "you are an idiot for making that edit", rather than "that edit is wrong because ..." Sanctions might easily be applied for these behaviours as they raise the overall editing temperature and make it impossible to edit collaboratively.
- Deliberately editing against consensus i.e. trying to force a particular pattern/statement where there is a clear consensus against this. This does not mean that edits are prohibited when consensus is unclear but, if disputed there needs to be a discussion rather than (my next point).
- Edit, move or revert warring. If you dispute an edit then the next step is to discuss and secure consensus. Deliberately editing in a way that undoes the disputed edit rather than having that discussion is almost a guarantee of getting sanctioned. This doesn't mean that you can undo the edit as soon as you start the discussion. All parties should wait until the consensus on the point is clear.
- Canvassing - if you notify anyone of discussion then it is canvassing unless the person notified is previously uninvolved and their views are unclear or you notify everyone. If the people you notify are those who might reasonably be expected to support your position then it is canvassing, and in an area subject to DS, likely to get you sanctioned.
- Forumshopping / Raising spurious complaints. Exporting disputes to external venues is extremely disruptive to the uninvolved editors, unless there is a clear issue that needs action. It takes time to read and process the issues and that is time that could be spent making productive edits.
- Walls of text/Controlling discussions. In a collaborative environment, edits posting lots of tl;dr text kill discussion as does trying to control the discussion or reinterpret what other people said.
- Constantly relitigating issues where consensus is unclear. This is clearly designed to wear out other editors to allow you to "win".
- Battleground behaviour. Another classic, extremely personalising behaviour or assuming that you are in a war and that you will win by whatever means necessary.
- Mass edits to run around consensus. Notice the corollary, if mass editing was prohibited then we would not have AWB. What is prohibited in DS areas is multiple edits intended to push a particular perspective that is against consensus. Large numbers of edits over a long period of time do not count, especially if there is evidence of considering policy or discussing when disputed. The issue is trying to overwhelm discussion not making the numerous edits per se.
- POV pushing - editing in a way to advance a view that is not consistent with NPOV or subverts our sourcing or editing standards. i.e. all Jews are evil clearly isn't NPOV.
- BLP violations - obvious really.
- Revenge or retaliatory complaints. (subset of battleground).
- Anything else that reasonably could be taken to be disruptive and damaging to collaborative editing in the affected area.
For an AE complaint to gain traction the reviewing admins are going to need to see evidence that there has been this behaviour and extra points get given for providing this with diffs accompanied by neutral commentary of how the edit/action infringes one of the above. Keep it short. Minus points come from long ranty sections advancing what you think is right and why the other editor is wrong. AE does not care about content disputes, it is purely about actionable behaviour. Another major minus is the speck in your opponent's eye while editing with a massive beam in your own. If AE finds that the complaining editor is equally guilty of the poor behaviours then they are just as likely to get sanctioned. If their behaviour started the dispute or was worse it's quite common for them to end up with the stricter sanctions.