User:Timotheus Canens/AE2
Appearance
![]() | 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. |
Various notes for AE admins, based on previous AE cases.
Misconduct
[edit]AE addresses conduct issues only. Content issues are outside AE's purview.
- Special case: Abusive sockpuppetry is usually referred to SPI. In easy cases where there's no need to keep a formal record, it may be a good idea to get a checkuser to take a look directly without going through the formal SPI process. In other cases, AE action has been taken at the conclusion of an SPI case without further AE reports.
- If not indef, the block of the sockmaster usually starts at six months.
- The following are conduct issues within AE's jurisdiction. This is not an exhaustive list.
- Edit warring.
- Battleground conduct (e.g., retaliatory AE requests, AFDs, etc.)
- Personal attacks, harassment, etc.
- Tendentious or disruptive editing.
- This includes (but is not limited to):
- Misrepresentation or falsification of sources.
- Using an obviously biased or otherwise sub-par source to support a contentious claim.
- Persistent editing in a manner favoring a particular entity across multiple articles may be taken as prima facie evidence of biased editing.
- This includes (but is not limited to):
- AE cannot resolve content disputes. However, in rare cases of entrenched content disputes where the two sides are incapable of reaching an agreeable solution by themselves, AE may attempt to impose a neutral process that would result in a binding solution.
Timeliness
[edit]- Usually, edits more than a week old or so cannot form the basis of an enforcement request by themselves, but can be used to establish a pattern of misconduct in conjunction with more recent edits.
- The time limit is usually more relaxed for low-activity accounts, and for edits demonstrating blatant misconduct that is fundamentally incompatible with encyclopedia building.
Warning
[edit]WP:AC/DS requires a warning.
- Warnings may be given by any editor. They should at a minimum link to the relevant arbitration decision.
- A user is deemed warned if the warning is on the edit notice of a page and the user edited the page after the warning was added to the edit notice.
- A user may be found constructively warned if they have previously participated extensively in AE threads related to the topic area, even in the absence of formal warnings.
- For parties to a case, the case clerk's notification that the case closed with discretionary sanctions enacted may be sufficient for a warning.
- Previous sanction under the same discretionary sanctions provision may constitute a warning.
- If the remedy has more specific warning requirements (e.g., WP:ARBSCI#Discretionary topic ban), these requirements controls.
Sanctions
[edit]- Common editor-level sanctions include revert restrictions (1RR/day, 1RR/week), interaction bans, topic bans, page bans, and blocks.
- Interaction bans cover every kind of possible interaction. One-way interaction bans are disfavored due to the strong gaming potential.
- Topic bans:
- Topic bans cover the entire topic in all namespaces by default. If you want to make an exception for discussions, make it clear.
- Topic bans are preferred over multiple page bans.
- Blocks:
- Usually blocks longer than a year cannot come under AE authority. For indef blocks, it is common to make an indef "normal" block and a one-year AE block to run concurrently.
- {{uw-aeblock}} is the usual template.
- Common article-level sanctions include revert restrictions.
- Article-level sanctions must be noted in the page's edit notice for it to have any effect. Also a good idea to note it on the talk page.