Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests | Enforcement Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:35, 24 November 2008 editCharlotteWebb (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,527 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:56, 11 November 2024 edit undoIzno (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Interface administrators, Administrators113,664 edits dark more friendly 
(87 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="plainlinks" style="text-align: center; margin: .5em 15%; padding: 0 1em; border: solid #aaa 1px;">
{{editabuselinks}}
<span style="font-size: 125%;">''''''</span><br/>'''For appeals: ] and use the template {{tl|Arbitration enforcement appeal}}'''<br/> See also: ]
{| class="collapsable" style="background: #eeeeee; border: 1px solid #a7a7a7; margin: 2em; padding: 0 10px 0 10px;"
</div>
|
<div class="plainlinks" style="margin: 1px;">
{| style="float: center; background: transparent;"
{{ombox
|{{nutshell|This page is for users to list breaches of an ] ruling. It is not part of ].}}</center>
| type = delete
|{{shortcut|WP:AE}}
| image =
|}
| style = background-color: var(--background-color-destructive-subtle, #ffe9e5); border: 2px solid #c00; margin: 6px; color: inherit;
This is a message board for requesting and discussing enforcement of ] (ArbCom) decisions. ] are needed to help enforce ArbCom decisions. ''Any user'' is welcome to request help here if a user is in violation of an ArbCom decision. '''Please make your comments concise''' and '''Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page'''.
| text = <span style="font-size: 1.3em; text-decoration: underline;">'''Important information'''</span>{{shortcut|WP:AE|WP:ARE}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
Please use this page <u>only</u> to:
|-
*request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a ] imposed by an ],
|style="width:40px;"| <imagemap>
*request contentious topic restrictions against ] editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
Image:Gtk-go-down.svg|25x25px|Skip to requests for protection
*request ] (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
default ]
*] (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.
desc none
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the ]. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use ].
</imagemap>
| ''Skip to ]'' &#8226; '']''
|}
<includeonly>]
]</includeonly>


'''Only ] users may file enforcement requests here;''' requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an ]). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. '''Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed ''500 words and 20 diffs''''', except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.
==Are you sure this is the page you are looking for?==
This page only involves violations of final ArbCom decisions. It is not for re-opening the dispute, or arguing about any ongoing dispute, but purely to compare a user's actions to any ruling that may apply to them, and enforcing a suitable remedy if there is a breach.


To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{tl|Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
Other remedies you may be looking for:
:* '''] violations''' are best reported on the ] (]). Even if an editor has an arbitration ruling about reverts, you will likely get a quicker response there.
:* Reporting of '''incidents that do not involve a completed Arbitration case''' (e.g. blocked users evading blocks, breach of a ''proposed'' ruling, etc) is done on the ] (]).
:* '''Specific assistance from an administrator''' can be obtained via ]. To request assistance from a specific administrator, see <nowiki>]</nowiki>.
:* '''Block appeals (unblocking)''' can be addressed by following the suggestions at ].
:* To '''request arbitration of a matter''', please go to ].


{{cot|Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions}}
If a user has breached an arbcom ruling, but others provoked them, or have breached rulings as well:
The ] ] relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:<!-- Last updated 18 Jan 2023 -->
:* '''This is enforcement, not ]'''. The case has already been ruled on. The question here is whether they engaged in conduct that breached that ruling.
:* If '''others breached a ruling too''', then they should be likewise listed here for enforcement.
:* If '''others acted problematically, but did not breach a ruling''', then seek normal dispute resolution, ] or an extension of the original ruling (see below).


{{ivmbox|1=All contentious topic restrictions (and ]) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
If a case remedy has proven inadequate, unhelpful, or a user's conduct received complaints at arbcom but was not sufficiently addressed, then it is possible to open a request for an ''']'''. Examples:
:* A user was topic-banned from ] but has now begun similar conduct on another political figure's article. Extension to cover "political biographies" not just one politician.
:* Evidence of some misconduct was presented for a user, but they had ceased some time ago and no ruling was given (or it was not sufficient for a ruling to be needed at that time). The behavior is being a problem. Extension sought to obtain some form of probation or restriction ruling.
:* Enforcement requirements were limited to 24 hour blocks, but due to ongoing problems administrators feel blocks of a longer period need to be possible.


The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
:''For further information on arbitration, see ].''
#ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
#request review at the ] ("AE") or at the ] ("AN"); and
#submit a ] ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by ].


Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the ].
==Enforcement==
Enforcement requests against users should be based on the principles and decisions in their arbitration case.


A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
Please be aware that these pages ''aren't'' the place to bring disputes over content. ArbCom decisions are generally about behavior, not content. Very few editors have content dispute prohibitions. ] is still the best place to hash out content disputes.
;Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction
An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
* The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,{{efn|1=The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.}} or is no longer an administrator;{{efn|This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.}} or
* The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
** the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
** the restriction was an indefinite block.


A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still ]. ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. ] at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Misplaced Pages's ] or ] policies will be ] and, if reinserted, will be deleted.
*a '''clear''' consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
*a '''clear''' consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
*a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.


Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
If an arbitration case has not been finalized, it is not enforceable. In that case, bad behavior should be reported on ] and you should consider adding the behavior to the /Evidence page of the arbitration case.


; Standard of review
'''Administrators:'''
; On community review
:* ArbCom decisions '''are''' the last stop of ]. ArbCom has already decided that certain types of ''behavior'' are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether that prohibition was breached. 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.
Uninvolved administrators at the ] ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the ] ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:
:* The enforcement mechanisms listed in each individual case should be construed liberally in order to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.
# the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
:* Remember that more than one side in a dispute may have arbcom conduct rulings applicable to them.
# the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
:*Once an issue is resolved, close it and move it to the top of the ] section, from whence a bot should archive it in 3 days.
# the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.


;On Arbitration Committee review
==Using this page==
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a ] ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
Add new requests '''].''' Please provide the following information:
# the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
# the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
# compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.}}
{{notelist}}
{{cob}}
{{cot|Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions}}
{{ivmbox|1=
The ] ] relating to modifications and appeals state:<!-- Last updated 18 Jan 2023 -->


;Appeals by sanctioned editors
Be prepared with:

:*At the top of your request, add a link to the final decision in their arbitration case; a list with summary disposition is at ]; use the format:<br />'''Arbcom case: &#91;&#91;Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/casename&#93;&#93;.''' You can add |casename if you like.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
:*] showing the violating behavior
# ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
:*A brief summary of how this behavior is linked to the principles, findings of fact, remedies, and/or enforcement mechanism of the arbitration case.
# request review at the ] ("AE") or at the ] ("AN"); and
:*Sign and date your report with Misplaced Pages's special signature format (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). The archival bot uses the time stamp to determine when to archive reports.
# submit a request for amendment at the ] ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through ] (or, if email access is revoked, to {{Nospam|arbcom-en|wikimedia.org}}).
:* (recommended) A diff showing that the user has previously been cautioned at their talkpage about the sanctions

'''Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page'''.
; Modifications by administrators
|}
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
{{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}
# the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
__TOC__
# prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

'''Important notes''':
# For a request to succeed, either
::(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
::(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
::is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
# <li value="2"> While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
# These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
# All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.}}
{{cob}}

{{cot|Information for administrators processing requests}}
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 {{tl|hat}} and {{tl|hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
* Please consider ] if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
* You can use the templates {{tl|uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{tl|AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
* Please log sanctions in the ].

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the ].
{{cob}}

}}</div>{{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}{{TOC left|limit=2}}{{clear}}<noinclude>
]
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 00:56, 11 November 2024

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

  • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
  • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
  • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
  • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

  1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

  • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
  • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
    • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
    • the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

  • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
  • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
  • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

  1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
  3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

  1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
  3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
  1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
  2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  1. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  2. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  3. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Information for administrators processing requests

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
341342343344
Category: