 | Note: This talk page should only be used for discussion about the way
arbitration enforcement operates: how to use the enforcement noticeboard, who can post and why, etc. All discussion about specific enforcement requests should be routed through the main noticeboard or other relevant pages for discussion. Discussion about the committee in general should go to a wider audience at
WT:AC or
WT:ACN.
→ Please
click here to start a new topic. ← |
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Note about these archives In 2008 the committee amalgamated all talk pages of the various arbitration requests subpages, and from then AE-related discussion took place at WT:AC. In 2015 this decision was overturned and AE regained a stand-alone talk page (with the committee ruling that it should have one solely for procedural and meta-discussion, with it not being used to rehash enforcement requests themselves). There are therefore two distinct archives for this page. Archive 3 and onwards are from after the restoration of the talk page. Archive 1 and 2 above are the archives from before the amalgamation. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I wanted to report a user here for disruptive editing which primarily focused on a contentious topic. However, I found the submission formatting requirements here to be too restrictive and so I reported them at WP:ANI instead. At ANI I was advised by one editor that it would be better to submit my report here. Is it possible I could make a small post to this noticeboard to draw attention to and to redirect to the report made at ANI? Even if it doesn't follow the required submission format? My reasoning for this request is based on the policy " Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 09:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC) The case I'm referring to is here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BilledMammal_disruptive_editing. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Feedback is requested on a draft to replace the information at AE for administrators. This text will replace the prose currently in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header (which is used for the top of AE) in the collapsed text titled "Information for administrators processing requests". Arbitrators have already given feedback on this text; I look forward to responding to the community's feedback. Thank you to everyone who leaves comments. Z1720 ( talk) 20:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Proposed text
Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.
A couple of reminders:
- Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
- When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
- Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
- More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.
Closing a thread:
- Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{ hat}} and {{ hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
- Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
- You can use the templates {{ uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{ AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
- Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.
Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.
Feedback
Feedback on the proposed new text can be left below:
Some feedback:
"Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced case and read all the evidence (including diffs) presented."
is unclear. "Case" is used elsewhere in these instructions to refer to the AE request at hand. Is "referenced case" the relevant ArbCom case? If so, does "all the evidence (including diffs) presnted" refer to the ArbCom case or the AE request?"When a request widens ..."
: can the notification requirement be limited to editors who are not already participating in the AE discussion? I know this is part of current guidance, but I have almost never seen it followed for boomerangs, etc.- Can the arbs comment on the reasons for removing the following current guidance items?
- If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.
- Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.
I hope this feedback is helpful. Glad to see AE getting some attention. My thanks to the arbs. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 21:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. Here's some responses:
- Agree that this can be worded better. Perhaps: "Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request." Thoughts?
- This wasn't discussed when I asked for feedback from Arbs. My personal opinion (not ArbCom) is that if someone proposes sanctions on an editor, that editor should be notified of the discussion even if they previously participated in a different section of the request. If the editor is already actively participating (that is, they have commented about proposed sanctions against them) then a notification may not be required. Is there a better way to word what is in this draft, or is there something at AE that needs to change to align the noticeboard with this instruction?
- It was removed for a couple of reasons. One was that the initial draft instructions were quite long; arbs requested that they be reduced, and these were two of the bullet points removed. This also conveyed a scary tone and could prevent administrators from wanting to be involved in this area. Also, my opinion (not ArbCom) is that these bullet points are redundant; I think admin should know that blocked/banned users might react negatively, and that if admin's comments are a net negative they might be asked to stop participating. I do not think restating these principles was necessary, but I am happy to hear contrary opinions or how these could be reworded.
- Thanks again for the feedback.
Z1720 (
talk) 21:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I like your proposed language for 1. The exception you mention for 2 (active participation) is maybe so common sense that it doesn't bear mentioning, and I do think efforts are commonly made to solicit participation of editors once sanctions are on the table for them, even if the specific template isn't used. Thank you for the insight on 3. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 21:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I've seen people ever notify "officially" for a
WP:BOOMERANG. I think people assume the filer has obviously seen and following the request; and anyways a sanction is not usually going to be imposed without a response from the filer/the filer being aware.
Galobtter (
talk) 23:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The "when a request widens" bullet point is copied from the instructions currently at AE. I think it is there to notify admin that they should not impose sanctions on someone if they were unaware of a discussion to do so. I think the first sentence can be shortened but am unsure how. I like the guidance for partial closures, so I would like to keep that. Z1720 ( talk) 22:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Just a minor grammar fix: in the first line, the final word of "variety of admin" should be "admins" or "administrators". Thryduulf ( talk) 11:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
On a minor copy-editing note, I suggest replacing Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom.
with "Not all enforcement requests will describe behavior restricted by ArbCom."
isaacl (
talk) 17:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that "show behavior" is not the best wording, but am unsure that describe is the best choice. What about "Not all enforcement requests will pertain to behavior restricted by ArbCom."?
Z1720 (
talk) 18:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe the subject should be different, since the requests themselves ought to pertain in some way to arbitration committee-enacted restrictions. How about "Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by the Arbitration Committee." On a secondary note, how about replacing the couple of uses of "ArbCom" with "Arbitration Committee" for uniformity (or "arbitration committee" everywhere)?
isaacl (
talk) 19:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I like this wording the best. I'll include your wording in a couple days if there are no objections. I am going to emphasise the short-form of ArbCom in the first instance to keep the instructions shorter.
Z1720 (
talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your consideration for the change in wording. Regarding references to the committee: looking at the rest of the header and the embedded instructions, the only use of "arbcom" is in the email address. So I still suggest either writing it out in full, or at least the first use of "ArbCom" should be in parentheses after "Arbitration Committee". isaacl ( talk) 23:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I like this wording the best. I'll include your wording in a couple days if there are no objections. I am going to emphasise the short-form of ArbCom in the first instance to keep the instructions shorter.
Z1720 (
talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe the subject should be different, since the requests themselves ought to pertain in some way to arbitration committee-enacted restrictions. How about "Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by the Arbitration Committee." On a secondary note, how about replacing the couple of uses of "ArbCom" with "Arbitration Committee" for uniformity (or "arbitration committee" everywhere)?
isaacl (
talk) 19:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Note to commentators: I will leave this open for at least two more days. Barring any major objection or concern, I will then move these instructions into the template. Z1720 ( talk) 22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Per the above notice, the proposed text above has been placed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header. Thanks for everyone who participated. Z1720 ( talk) 20:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
What is the appropriate way to request a word limit extension? And is it frowned upon to do so? (In this case I'd like to briefly respond to a comment which mentions me directly.
Presumably I can just add a request for extension to my statement but as this would take me over the word limit I'd like to confirm that that is appropriate.
Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 15:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Go for it, just don't use more than you need. Please keep it concise. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I was told to "go to AE" regarding concerns presented here. I'm not sure how to present this as it doesn't seem possible to file a request for enforcement unless it be against a specific editor. I'm seeking guidance here on how to proceed with this. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 15:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is an issue I ran into in the wake of the Suicide of Eden Knight; I had to mangle the template and noted the request was nonstandard for the same reason. There seriously needs to be templates for requesting page-level or otherwise non-editor sanctions. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
| Note: This talk page should only be used for discussion about the way
arbitration enforcement operates: how to use the enforcement noticeboard, who can post and why, etc. All discussion about specific enforcement requests should be routed through the main noticeboard or other relevant pages for discussion. Discussion about the committee in general should go to a wider audience at
WT:AC or
WT:ACN.
→ Please
click here to start a new topic. ← |
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Note about these archives In 2008 the committee amalgamated all talk pages of the various arbitration requests subpages, and from then AE-related discussion took place at WT:AC. In 2015 this decision was overturned and AE regained a stand-alone talk page (with the committee ruling that it should have one solely for procedural and meta-discussion, with it not being used to rehash enforcement requests themselves). There are therefore two distinct archives for this page. Archive 3 and onwards are from after the restoration of the talk page. Archive 1 and 2 above are the archives from before the amalgamation. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I wanted to report a user here for disruptive editing which primarily focused on a contentious topic. However, I found the submission formatting requirements here to be too restrictive and so I reported them at WP:ANI instead. At ANI I was advised by one editor that it would be better to submit my report here. Is it possible I could make a small post to this noticeboard to draw attention to and to redirect to the report made at ANI? Even if it doesn't follow the required submission format? My reasoning for this request is based on the policy " Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 09:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC) The case I'm referring to is here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BilledMammal_disruptive_editing. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Feedback is requested on a draft to replace the information at AE for administrators. This text will replace the prose currently in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header (which is used for the top of AE) in the collapsed text titled "Information for administrators processing requests". Arbitrators have already given feedback on this text; I look forward to responding to the community's feedback. Thank you to everyone who leaves comments. Z1720 ( talk) 20:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Proposed text
Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.
A couple of reminders:
- Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
- When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
- Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
- More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.
Closing a thread:
- Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{ hat}} and {{ hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
- Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
- You can use the templates {{ uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{ AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
- Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.
Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.
Feedback
Feedback on the proposed new text can be left below:
Some feedback:
"Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced case and read all the evidence (including diffs) presented."
is unclear. "Case" is used elsewhere in these instructions to refer to the AE request at hand. Is "referenced case" the relevant ArbCom case? If so, does "all the evidence (including diffs) presnted" refer to the ArbCom case or the AE request?"When a request widens ..."
: can the notification requirement be limited to editors who are not already participating in the AE discussion? I know this is part of current guidance, but I have almost never seen it followed for boomerangs, etc.- Can the arbs comment on the reasons for removing the following current guidance items?
- If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.
- Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.
I hope this feedback is helpful. Glad to see AE getting some attention. My thanks to the arbs. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 21:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. Here's some responses:
- Agree that this can be worded better. Perhaps: "Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request." Thoughts?
- This wasn't discussed when I asked for feedback from Arbs. My personal opinion (not ArbCom) is that if someone proposes sanctions on an editor, that editor should be notified of the discussion even if they previously participated in a different section of the request. If the editor is already actively participating (that is, they have commented about proposed sanctions against them) then a notification may not be required. Is there a better way to word what is in this draft, or is there something at AE that needs to change to align the noticeboard with this instruction?
- It was removed for a couple of reasons. One was that the initial draft instructions were quite long; arbs requested that they be reduced, and these were two of the bullet points removed. This also conveyed a scary tone and could prevent administrators from wanting to be involved in this area. Also, my opinion (not ArbCom) is that these bullet points are redundant; I think admin should know that blocked/banned users might react negatively, and that if admin's comments are a net negative they might be asked to stop participating. I do not think restating these principles was necessary, but I am happy to hear contrary opinions or how these could be reworded.
- Thanks again for the feedback.
Z1720 (
talk) 21:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I like your proposed language for 1. The exception you mention for 2 (active participation) is maybe so common sense that it doesn't bear mentioning, and I do think efforts are commonly made to solicit participation of editors once sanctions are on the table for them, even if the specific template isn't used. Thank you for the insight on 3. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 21:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I've seen people ever notify "officially" for a
WP:BOOMERANG. I think people assume the filer has obviously seen and following the request; and anyways a sanction is not usually going to be imposed without a response from the filer/the filer being aware.
Galobtter (
talk) 23:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The "when a request widens" bullet point is copied from the instructions currently at AE. I think it is there to notify admin that they should not impose sanctions on someone if they were unaware of a discussion to do so. I think the first sentence can be shortened but am unsure how. I like the guidance for partial closures, so I would like to keep that. Z1720 ( talk) 22:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Just a minor grammar fix: in the first line, the final word of "variety of admin" should be "admins" or "administrators". Thryduulf ( talk) 11:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
On a minor copy-editing note, I suggest replacing Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom.
with "Not all enforcement requests will describe behavior restricted by ArbCom."
isaacl (
talk) 17:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that "show behavior" is not the best wording, but am unsure that describe is the best choice. What about "Not all enforcement requests will pertain to behavior restricted by ArbCom."?
Z1720 (
talk) 18:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe the subject should be different, since the requests themselves ought to pertain in some way to arbitration committee-enacted restrictions. How about "Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by the Arbitration Committee." On a secondary note, how about replacing the couple of uses of "ArbCom" with "Arbitration Committee" for uniformity (or "arbitration committee" everywhere)?
isaacl (
talk) 19:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I like this wording the best. I'll include your wording in a couple days if there are no objections. I am going to emphasise the short-form of ArbCom in the first instance to keep the instructions shorter.
Z1720 (
talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your consideration for the change in wording. Regarding references to the committee: looking at the rest of the header and the embedded instructions, the only use of "arbcom" is in the email address. So I still suggest either writing it out in full, or at least the first use of "ArbCom" should be in parentheses after "Arbitration Committee". isaacl ( talk) 23:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I like this wording the best. I'll include your wording in a couple days if there are no objections. I am going to emphasise the short-form of ArbCom in the first instance to keep the instructions shorter.
Z1720 (
talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe the subject should be different, since the requests themselves ought to pertain in some way to arbitration committee-enacted restrictions. How about "Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by the Arbitration Committee." On a secondary note, how about replacing the couple of uses of "ArbCom" with "Arbitration Committee" for uniformity (or "arbitration committee" everywhere)?
isaacl (
talk) 19:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Note to commentators: I will leave this open for at least two more days. Barring any major objection or concern, I will then move these instructions into the template. Z1720 ( talk) 22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Per the above notice, the proposed text above has been placed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header. Thanks for everyone who participated. Z1720 ( talk) 20:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
What is the appropriate way to request a word limit extension? And is it frowned upon to do so? (In this case I'd like to briefly respond to a comment which mentions me directly.
Presumably I can just add a request for extension to my statement but as this would take me over the word limit I'd like to confirm that that is appropriate.
Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 15:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Go for it, just don't use more than you need. Please keep it concise. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I was told to "go to AE" regarding concerns presented here. I'm not sure how to present this as it doesn't seem possible to file a request for enforcement unless it be against a specific editor. I'm seeking guidance here on how to proceed with this. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 15:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is an issue I ran into in the wake of the Suicide of Eden Knight; I had to mangle the template and noted the request was nonstandard for the same reason. There seriously needs to be templates for requesting page-level or otherwise non-editor sanctions. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)