User:Darkfrog24/sandbox/AEFAQ

This is a draft of an RfC for AE procedures. It is a work in progress made by a non-admin Wikieditor. In its current form, it involves guesses and personal opinions. It is based on observations made at WP:AE and statements made by the admins who participate there. It has not been approved by the arbitration committee. Do not take this advice as anything but one editor's perspective until this draft is approved for use.

{{FAQ page}}

Common pitfalls:

• AE noticeboards and involved administrators' talk pages are not exempt from the ban.
• Asking questions about the ban is interpreted as bad faith, not good faith.
• Your own user space and sandbox are not exempt from the ban.
• Talking about the ban itself is tantamount to talking about the banned topic.
• If you are asked to participate in a discussion of the banned topic, you are permitted to tell that person that you are under a ban and not at liberty to respond, but you are not required to do so; you may, if you prefer, say nothing.
• You are not allowed to tell anyone who filed the complaint against you or post a link to the discussion.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

I'm not sure how to properly express myself in just 500 words. What is the procedure for asking for more space?

The 500-word rule is almost never enforced. Just go over if you need to. However, remember that administrators and commenting editors are human beings with normal attention spans. Do not overtax their patience. Short statements are more likely to be read thoroughly.

I am right and my opponent is wrong. How should this figure into my statement?

Focus on conduct, not content. Only explain why you're right if it is relevant. For example, if you were accused of edit warring or incivility, then it doesn't matter whether or not you are right about what the article should say. Instead, explain, if possibly, how your edits or comments were not disruptive. However, if you were accused of adding unverifiable content or ignoring sources, then showing proof is appropriate.

I've been accused of wrongdoing at AE/I have reported another editor at AE. Am I allowed to call witnesses? What constitutes appropriate notification?

Possibility #1 You are not allowed to call character witnesses or limit alerts to individuals whom you specifically believe will agree with or support you. That would be construed as inappropriate canvassing. It is sometimes appropriate to notify other editors in a neutral manner. For example, if another participant in this AE process has cited a specific conversation, thread or article, you may alert all the other participants in that conversation, thread, or article. Send all of them the exact same notice, neutrally worded. Remember, however, that non-admin editors are there solely to provide comments and perspective and have no vote. Unlike in an RfC, for which a large number of voices is best, AE proceedings are best kept concise. The kind of widespread notification that would be helpful to an RfC would be disruptive to an AE filing. Possibility #2 No. You may not call witnesses or alert any party other than the accused that the AE thread is in progress. That would be construed as inappropriate canvassing. Editors must find their way to AE on their own.

What is meant by "broadly construed"?

"Broadly construed" means that the banned Wikieditor is asked to avoid even the appearance of impropriety by refraining from editing on articles or topics that only peripherally touch the specific subject of the ban. More concretely, it refers to two or three degrees of separation. Not only must the banned Wikieditor avoid the banned article but also meta-discussions about the topic. For example, if another user is facing an ANI filing for behavior that took place on a page subject to the ban, then topic-banned editor may not comment in that thread, even though they would be talking about a person and not about the banned topic and even if the behavior is independent of the topic itself, like edit warring or harassment.

Where do I respond to other people's comments?

AE filings are not threaded like talk page discussions, so respond in the section that contains your own statement, not directly beneath the person to whom you are responding. Consider notifying the person to whom you are responding with a {{ping|username}}. However, AE is not meant to be a discussion. While it is appropriate to respond to some comments, such as those that contain questions or obvious misconceptions that can be corrected with a clarification or diff, it is neither necessary nor desirable to respond to every comment.

Am I allowed to comment on someone else's AE thread or are they just for admins and involved editors?

Any editor may comment in any AE thread so long as he or she discloses any involvement. Being accused or banned does not change this. Topic bans by definition assume that the editor in question is fit to participate in other parts of Wikipedia, such AE proceedings not related to the banned topic.

The filer has posted a very long list of diffs and complaints. How am I supposed to choose which ones to answer in my 500-word statement?

The 500-word rule is almost never enforced. You are not actually required to keep your statement to 500 words, though the admins reserve the right to shorten statements that exceed that length. But remember that the other editors involved are real people with attention spans. Short statements are more likely to be read in full.

I am filing a request for enforcement, but I do not feel that 500 words is enough to properly describe what the person I'm accusing has done.

The 500-word rule is almost never enforced. You are not actually required to keep your statement to 500 words, though the admins reserve the right to shorten statements that exceed that length. However, because you are the one initiating the conversation, you have set its pace. Writing a long statement can in many cases force the accused to make one as well. This leaves the admins with less time, energy and patience to give to the details of the matter. However, you also have more freedom regarding the structure of your statement. Remember, you have time to draft and prepare your statement, and the accused does not. Use that time well. There are ways to keep it short but effective: If the incidences you're citing against this editor are not qualitatively different from one another (they're all edit wars or they're all incivility) then you probably don't need that many examples. Just say "more upon request." If they are qualitatively different from each other (this person edit warred and removed sourced material without discussion and has a problematic talk page manner and has been harassing someone) then consider filing separate, concurrent complaints. This makes it possible for the work to be split up among a greater number of admins and, if they determine that the accused should be sanctioned for some of the issues you've raised but not others, it will be easier for the accused to determine which specific behaviors he or she must change.

The other party is lying, exaggerating, cherry-picking or otherwise falsifying his or her statement. What do I do?

Do not allow yourself to be distracted. Lying at AE is not an independently punishable offense, so even if you have proof, it will not result in a sanction. If you are accused, remember that the goal of your statement is not to get your accuser boomeranged but to show that your own behavior was not detrimental to Wikipedia's process. If you are the accuser, remember that your goal is to show that the accused's behavior requires intervention. Focus on finding diffs that support this. Sometimes people lie and sometimes liars are believed, but accusing someone of lying without proof is also a serious matter. Avoid using the word "lying" or "liar" unless you can provide proof that your the other party knows that the things that he or is she is saying are untrue. Otherwise, restrict your terminology to "that is not true." AE filings can be emotionally charged but remember that it is possible that this person is merely mistaken or forgot something.

I have been placed under a topic ban. Should I ask admins and other editors for constructive criticism on my behavior or how I could handle the matter better in the future?

No. Unless your topic ban is limited to articles (permitting you to discuss the topic on talk pages), even good-faith questions about the events that led up to the topic ban will be interpreted as a violation of the topic ban, even if you ask the administrators who issued the ban. Any indication that you are planning to return to the banned topic may be interpreted as bad faith, even if that is not your intention.

I have been placed under a topic ban. The notice placed on my talk page says that I should ask the admins if anything is unclear. What are some good questions to ask and demonstrate my willingness to make the best of things within the system?

None. Asking any questions about what you are and are not allowed to do will be interpreted as bad faith. To find out what topic bans do and do not cover, watchlist the Arbitration Enforcement page and observe the admins in action. In time, you may find that you have internalized a pattern.

I want to return to editing the part of Wikipedia from which I have been banned. What should I do to convince the admins that I can be trusted to do so?

One of the goals of a topic ban is actually to force the banned editor to work on other parts of Wikipedia so that he or she may come to prefer them to the banned area and decide not to return. In any case, select another area of Wikipedia and edit constructively without repeating the specific practices that the admins deemed undesirable. For example, if you were topic banned for edit warring, even if you don't think what you did counts as edit warring, use the time until your appeal to cultivate a habit of taking edits to the talk page before making them. If you were banned for using inappropriate sources, even if you don't think the sources were inappropriate, use the time to cultivate the habit of going above and beyond verifiability requirements. This will be beneficial regardless of whether your feelings toward the banned topic change. Even if your appeal is declined, a strong reputation in other parts of Wikipedia may convince admins not to block you if some other matter should arise. While a short wikibreak may be appropriate, leaving Wikipedia for the entire period and reappearing only to appeal your ban is not likely to inspire confidence.

I see other editors adding unsourced, misspelled, false or otherwise undesirable material to articles from which I am banned. What should I do?

Do not remove, restore or alter the material yourself, even if you think no one would mind. If you are under a topic ban, then you are not allowed to edit the pages, even if the changes would otherwise be considered constructive or if you think they would not be controversial. If your topic ban does not include talk pages, raise the issue there so that another editor may make the necessary change. If you are banned from discussing the topic at all, be advised that you are also not allowed to notify other editors that the undesirable material is in the article. Unless your ban makes a specific exception, do not even add {{citation needed}} or other tags. The issue must stand or be solved without you. Consider removing the page from your watchlist. Topic bans by definition make exceptions for obvious vandalism, but may be best to allow other editors to fix vandalism, if only to avoid the impression that you are skirting the edges of your ban.

I see someone who is under the same topic ban as myself editing banned articles. Should I tell an admin or file a complaint?

No. You are not allowed to report anything that happens in those articles, not even other editors violating their topic bans, not even to the admin who issued the ban. The issue must stand or be solved without you. Consider removing the page from your watchlist. Also, consider staying away from former opponents. No one appointed you their keeper. Leave that to neutral parties.