This is an
information page. It is not one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of
consensus and
vetting. |
This page documents the principles and standards usually employed by administrators participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement. Because arbitration enforcement relies on the individual discretion of administrators, they remain free to use other standards and procedures. These standards and procedures are not endorsed by the Arbitration Committee and enforcement actions remain in all cases subject to Committee oversight and review.
Editors wishing to edit in [problematic] areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia’s communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
This WikiProject covers topic areas that are subject to discretionary sanctions or similar broad-ranging remedies imposed by the Arbitration Committee. That Committee has determined that these areas are exceptionally conflict-laden and that editors editing in them must therefore take particular care. This means that the community's tolerance for disruption in these areas is much lower than elsewhere, and so is the threshold for what counts as sanctionable disruption. In particular:
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles.
Arbitration Enforcement sanctions are usually imposed after an editor is notified of the relevant arbitration decision. In many cases this notification is given even in cases where the editor can be assumed to be already aware of the arbitration case.
Wherever possible administrators should counsel editors in regard to problematic behavior, and allow editors time to improve their conduct.
While creative or individualized sanctions may at times be necessary, the following sanctions are most often employed:
Except in situations which involve clear cut violations, or where necessary to prevent disruption, administrators should give editors the opportunity to explain their conduct before imposing sanctions.
Sanctions should be as narrow and short as is necessary to stop the disruption at issue, and as broad and long as is necessary to ensure that the disruption will most likely not occur again. In practice, this is often realized through an escalating scale of sanctions, e.g. as follows:
The idea behind escalating sanctions is that if a short and narrow sanction proves ineffective to prevent disruption, a longer and broader sanction may be required. In all cases, sanctions may be reduced in scope or duration, or lifted, at any time if the imposing administrator or the community are convinced that the sanction is no longer required (see the guide to appealing blocks).
Because of the particular sensitivity of the topic areas subject to arbitration enforcement, administrators may tend to err on the safe side and impose longer and broader sanctions than they would for similar disruption in other topic areas.
The mechanism for the review and appeal of arbitration enforcement sanctions is described at WP:AEBLOCK.
This is an
information page. It is not one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of
consensus and
vetting. |
This page documents the principles and standards usually employed by administrators participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement. Because arbitration enforcement relies on the individual discretion of administrators, they remain free to use other standards and procedures. These standards and procedures are not endorsed by the Arbitration Committee and enforcement actions remain in all cases subject to Committee oversight and review.
Editors wishing to edit in [problematic] areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia’s communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
This WikiProject covers topic areas that are subject to discretionary sanctions or similar broad-ranging remedies imposed by the Arbitration Committee. That Committee has determined that these areas are exceptionally conflict-laden and that editors editing in them must therefore take particular care. This means that the community's tolerance for disruption in these areas is much lower than elsewhere, and so is the threshold for what counts as sanctionable disruption. In particular:
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles.
Arbitration Enforcement sanctions are usually imposed after an editor is notified of the relevant arbitration decision. In many cases this notification is given even in cases where the editor can be assumed to be already aware of the arbitration case.
Wherever possible administrators should counsel editors in regard to problematic behavior, and allow editors time to improve their conduct.
While creative or individualized sanctions may at times be necessary, the following sanctions are most often employed:
Except in situations which involve clear cut violations, or where necessary to prevent disruption, administrators should give editors the opportunity to explain their conduct before imposing sanctions.
Sanctions should be as narrow and short as is necessary to stop the disruption at issue, and as broad and long as is necessary to ensure that the disruption will most likely not occur again. In practice, this is often realized through an escalating scale of sanctions, e.g. as follows:
The idea behind escalating sanctions is that if a short and narrow sanction proves ineffective to prevent disruption, a longer and broader sanction may be required. In all cases, sanctions may be reduced in scope or duration, or lifted, at any time if the imposing administrator or the community are convinced that the sanction is no longer required (see the guide to appealing blocks).
Because of the particular sensitivity of the topic areas subject to arbitration enforcement, administrators may tend to err on the safe side and impose longer and broader sanctions than they would for similar disruption in other topic areas.
The mechanism for the review and appeal of arbitration enforcement sanctions is described at WP:AEBLOCK.