Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/IP/Users

question

not an admin but I have a question. Would members log it every time someone is brought for an enforcement even if they are found not at fault? Stellarkid (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, only if they believe that the incident may be relevant for future enforcement action. Sandstein 06:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't everything be logged? The purpose of this page isn't to pass judgment on the user, but to track enforcement against that user, both good and bad. The page would note enforcement measures, but also note incidents of frivilous reports, as Stellarkid noted below. By keeping this as an impersonal log of everything, it also allows for feedback when it comes to improper or overly harsh enforcement measures, as wall as times when enforcement would have been acceptable but was for some reason not used. Trusilver 21:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. We'll have to adjust the WP:AE boilerplate accordingly to remind ourselves to log all requests. Sandstein 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: if someone is brought to enforcement and found not at fault, should the editor who brought them there be noted? I would say yes if the enforcement admin thinks it was done for purposes of harassment or an attempt to prevent the other from editing? Stellarkid (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to the logging admin; generally, I think that frivolous (i.e., bad faith) AE reports should be logged. Sandstein 16:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of a central tracking for all enforcement? For example, on Sarah Palin there is a log for sanctions for that family of articles, on Homeopathy ditto - apologies for not linking at the moment, but I trust you know what I'm speaking of without the links. Here is where I am going; if central, then we'll have to avoid duplication of effort. If you're suggesting we log on sanctions which are not currently tracked, then that's a different approach, and I cannot comment constructively until I know which way you're heading with this. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that we should not duplicate effort. Currently most cases only provide for the logging of sanctions on the case pages. However, the point of this page is to include also warnings and other incidents to give a more complete picture of an editor's conduct with respect to the topic, so that we can determine whether somebody's longterm disruption is enough for a sanction even if they have not yet been formally sanctioned. With the agreement of ArbCom, if this gets off the ground, we could link to here from the case page and do all logging (and discussion) in one place, here. Sandstein 16:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - we've been logging most warnings on the Palin log page, and I had argued for that to become the norm rather than the exception, so we're definitely looking at the same approach - your version has the advantage that if an editor is a problem across different cases, it will be easier to spot; and advantage of centralized effort so that it will be easy to locate each log. Nice. You have my full support on this - please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The way the draft is currently set up is one page per case, since I assume most holy warriors will tend to stick to their own holy wars, and if need be we can link between case pages. Or do you propose we make one big page for all cases? Sandstein 19:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, currently we have WP:GS as an overview page, with individual pages/cases logged on other pages - sometimes subpages of GS and sometimes elsewhere. Looking at the Obama log page shows a long list of sanctions and warnings, divided into Disruption (mostly blocks), Trolls, socks, and vandals (more blocks) and Articles given probation templates (not editor related). Obviously, the concern is to not duplicate the two sections with blocks. So either this needs to be a new format/procedure for logging blocks, warnings, and other sanctions, or we'll need to link to another log page for warnings and sanctions. I can see benefits and problems with each approach; I'll want to think about this and hopefully see some input from others before coming down on one side or the other. There could also be a third option I'm just not seeing - but right now, I'm unclear on what might be the best way to handle it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a look at the Obama log page and compared with the I-P sanctions log page. What stood out to me was that with the exception of socks and vandals, the ban periods are waaaay longer for I-P than for Obama. How does that work? Stellarkid (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think it would be nice if it was easier to distinguish incidents where a user was reported by someone else, and incidents where a user reported someone else frivolously (maybe two lists, or some icon to indicate whether the user was doing the reporting or being reported). Being able to distinguish incidents between the two might be useful in determining if an editor is a forum shopper, a long term AE sniper (trying to pick off targets one-by-one with frivolous reports), or a disruptive editor. However, I don't think editors who have a track record of non-frivolous reports should be punished for it by having them listed here, as doing so would be an incentive to not report events with merit. ← George^talk 19:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I recommend simply logging frivolous reports by the user at issue as such, and non-frivolous reports not at all. Sandstein 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how to distinguish frivolous reports made by the user from reports made against the user? To give an example, after reading some claims at WP:AE, I came here to see if Nableezy had made frivolous AE reports against other people before. I see a list of eight reports, but these are all cases against Nableezy. Does that mean he has made no frivolous AE reports against others? If he had made some frivolous reports, would they be in the same list, or a separate list? I think if they were in a separate list it, it might be easier to read, but I'm not sure. ← George^talk 22:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]