| Revision as of 07:20, 12 March 2011 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,282 edits →We can end this right now: PS...← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:40, 12 March 2011 edit undoSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,269 edits begin evidenceNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| PS: Ludwig2's block should be reinstated. Due process must still be followed in this case. -- ] (]) 07:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | PS: Ludwig2's block should be reinstated. Due process must still be followed in this case. -- ] (]) 07:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ==Evidence presented by Sandstein== | |||
| This section was last updated 07:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC). It may continue to be updated until the end of the deadline (if any) for submitting evidence. Please tell me on ] if any factual assertion made here is incorrect. | |||
| ===Dreadstar=== | |||
| (Evidence forthcoming.) | |||
| ===Sandstein=== | |||
| (Evidence forthcoming.) | |||
| ===Arbitration enforcement in general=== | |||
| Arbitrators wish to review AE practices in general and the use of discretionary sanctions in particular. In my opinion, the AE system is generally well-established and a benefit to the project. No major changes to the rules are therefore required, except perhaps certain tweaks and clarifications (for instance, that discretionary sanctions do apply to conduct outside of topic-related articles). This section provides evidence for this assertion. | |||
| ====Discretionary sanctions are frequently used==== | |||
| In the 14 areas where they are authorized (]), discretionary sanctions are regularly imposed. With respect to the ] alone, where they are available since January 2008, a very approximate count in the enforcement log indicates that about 150 such actions (including blocks enforcing previous sanctions) have been made. | |||
| Many of these disputes, if they could not have been handled with some degree of finality through the AE system, would have needed to be addressed on community dispute resolution fora or by the Committee, usually with much more drama and effort. Also, it can be assumed that the availability of a relatively fast and authoritative framework to handle misconduct has deterred established editors in the respective topic areas from much confrontational behavior. Without AE, therefore, the number of escalating disputes may well have been higher. | |||
| ====Discretionary sanctions are seldom overturned==== | |||
| Also using the ] area as an example, according to the enforcement log, only 7 of the about 150 enforcement actions seem to have been changed by somebody else than the admin who made them, or as a result of an appeal discussion in a public forum: | |||
| {{collapse top|1=Details}} | |||
| #] placed on a one-revert-only rule due to edit-warring by Moreschi, 22 January 2008. Undone as no longer necessary by PhilKnight, 19 September 2010 | |||
| #] placed on 1RR/week limit to expire in 30 days by Kylu, 2 February 2008. Lifted by Tariqabjotu, 4 February 2008 | |||
| #Tundrabuggy banned from editing ] or Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah for a period of three months by MZMcBride, 10 June 2008. Lifted by Elonka, 17 and 30 June 2008 | |||
| #MeteorMaker banned from making ]-related reverts, or removing citations to reliable sources, for 90 days by Elonka, 14 February 2009. Lifted "without prejudice pending arbitration" by Jehochman, 1 March 2009 | |||
| #Nishidani blocked one week by Jehochman, 1 April 2009, unblocked "per ANI consensus" by Bishonen the same day. | |||
| #Nableezy topic-banned for two months by Sandstein, 1 January 2010. Ban lifted by Sandstein following appeal and discussion at ], 6 January 2010. | |||
| #Nableezy interaction-banned by Tim Song, 29 November 2010. Ban partially lifted on appeal by Tim Song, 8 December 2010. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| No AE sanction that I know of has been overturned by the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales. | |||
| This indicates that most discretionary sanctions seem to be considered appropriate (or at least not clearly inappropriate) by the wider community and the Committee, in the cases where they are appealed at all. | |||
| ====Discretionary sanctions are subject to review by a well-established appeals system==== | |||
| Under the rules instituted by the Committee in the Trusilver case in March 2010 (as quoted at ]), users subject to discretionary sanctions can appeal to the sanctioning admin, to the committee or to a community noticeboard discussion (which requires a "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to overturn). Since then, the template {{tl|Arbitration enforcement appeal}} exists to provide structure to such appeal discussions. Its use is explained in the ] ] and at ], which is linked to from the AE block notice template, {{tl|uw-aeblock}}. Users are therefore well-informed about the venues of appeal. The appeal template has been in the AE archives. I am not aware of any appeal discussion derailing or of the result of any appeal discussion being contested. | |||
| ====Discretionary sanctions are generally accepted==== | |||
| I am not aware of any community discussion (such as a ]) that has expressed community discontent with the system of discretionary sanctions as instituted by the Arbitration Committee, or any particular aspect of it, such as the "Trusilver" restriction on undoing enforcement actions, the appeals framework or the enforcement practices of any administrator. As is to be expected, there have been expressions of discontent by users affected by individual enforcement actions and their friends. | |||
| ==Evidence presented by {your user name}== | ==Evidence presented by {your user name}== | ||
Revision as of 07:40, 12 March 2011
|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: NuclearWarfare (Talk) & X! (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren (Talk) |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
 | Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Dreadstar
Unblock of Ludwigs2
Again, I apologize to the Committee. I have zero admin experience of dealing with AE blocks, and didn't realize the full implications of it. Overall, I've only made a total of four unblocks in the past two years (including this one); the other three were unrelated to AE and were of blocks made by me where the blockee gave assurances of better behavior – so I have no history of unblock abuse.
Regarding the Ludwigs unblock, I saw what appeared to be a hasty block that would increase drama, with several editors on both sides of the debate speaking out against it (and I believe no one in favor when I unblocked), so my aim was to reduce drama quickly. I apologize that my actions had the opposite effect. When I began to realize the implications of it being an AE block, I e-mailed the Committee to explain my actions. I was unsure how to proceed at that point: to reblock for the sake of process seemed wrong and unfair to the blockee, so I waited to hear from Sandstein. When he came back online he filed the case immediately, so there was no opportunity to look for another way forward.
It would be helpful to me and possibly others to clarify what conduct, in what venues, by which editors, regarding what issues, should fall under an AE restriction. I didn’t see this as being directly related to the Pseudoscience ArbCom case. Also of help would be verification that any block marked as AE be treated as AE, even if the association seems distant.
But, once again, mea culpa here, and let me assure everyone that it definitely will not happen again. Dreadstar ☥ 06:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Evidence presented by BullRangifer
We can end this right now
I think Dreadstar's statement is sufficient to end this right now with no more drama. A mistake was made because of inexperience. That's forgivable.
Now all that is needed is a statement that will prevent such things from happening again. The proper process for unblocking an AE block should be followed. The determination of whether or not to call the initial block an "AE block" isn't anyone's business but the blocking admin. If they say it was, then all other admins must AGF and not unblock without following due process. If the blocking admin has abused the "AE block" template, that's an entirely different matter.
This could be the shortest AE case in history. There is no need for more drama. We just need a clear statement for the record.
PS: Ludwig2's block should be reinstated. Due process must still be followed in this case. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Sandstein
This section was last updated 07:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC). It may continue to be updated until the end of the deadline (if any) for submitting evidence. Please tell me on my talk page if any factual assertion made here is incorrect.
Dreadstar
(Evidence forthcoming.)
Sandstein
(Evidence forthcoming.)
Arbitration enforcement in general
Arbitrators wish to review AE practices in general and the use of discretionary sanctions in particular. In my opinion, the AE system is generally well-established and a benefit to the project. No major changes to the rules are therefore required, except perhaps certain tweaks and clarifications (for instance, that discretionary sanctions do apply to conduct outside of topic-related articles). This section provides evidence for this assertion.
Discretionary sanctions are frequently used
In the 14 areas where they are authorized (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions), discretionary sanctions are regularly imposed. With respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict alone, where they are available since January 2008, a very approximate count in the enforcement log indicates that about 150 such actions (including blocks enforcing previous sanctions) have been made.
Many of these disputes, if they could not have been handled with some degree of finality through the AE system, would have needed to be addressed on community dispute resolution fora or by the Committee, usually with much more drama and effort. Also, it can be assumed that the availability of a relatively fast and authoritative framework to handle misconduct has deterred established editors in the respective topic areas from much confrontational behavior. Without AE, therefore, the number of escalating disputes may well have been higher.
Discretionary sanctions are seldom overturned
Also using the Arab-Israeli conflict area as an example, according to the enforcement log, only 7 of the about 150 enforcement actions seem to have been changed by somebody else than the admin who made them, or as a result of an appeal discussion in a public forum:
| Details |
|---|
|
No AE sanction that I know of has been overturned by the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales.
This indicates that most discretionary sanctions seem to be considered appropriate (or at least not clearly inappropriate) by the wider community and the Committee, in the cases where they are appealed at all.
Discretionary sanctions are subject to review by a well-established appeals system
Under the rules instituted by the Committee in the Trusilver case in March 2010 (as quoted at WP:AEBLOCK), users subject to discretionary sanctions can appeal to the sanctioning admin, to the committee or to a community noticeboard discussion (which requires a "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to overturn). Since then, the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} exists to provide structure to such appeal discussions. Its use is explained in the WP:AE edit notice and at WP:AEBLOCK, which is linked to from the AE block notice template, {{uw-aeblock}}. Users are therefore well-informed about the venues of appeal. The appeal template has been used 19 times in the AE archives. I am not aware of any appeal discussion derailing or of the result of any appeal discussion being contested.
Discretionary sanctions are generally accepted
I am not aware of any community discussion (such as a WP:RFC) that has expressed community discontent with the system of discretionary sanctions as instituted by the Arbitration Committee, or any particular aspect of it, such as the "Trusilver" restriction on undoing enforcement actions, the appeals framework or the enforcement practices of any administrator. As is to be expected, there have been expressions of discontent by users affected by individual enforcement actions and their friends.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.