User talk:Darkfrog24/sandbox/AEFAQ: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 13:47, 23 November 2016

Comments welcome[edit]

This is a work in progress and I would like the input of many editors. The answers concerning appropriate notification and statement length are at this point my own guesses. The recommendations regarding spending ban time productively are partially my own guesses and partially based on a statement by admin Thryduulf. The assertion that banned editors are not allowed to tell anyone about unsourced information is based on admin Thryduulf's answer to a direct question. The assertion that leaving Wikipedia during the ban would not help is based on my interpretation of admin Liz's answer to an open-ended question.

Right now, the target audience is someone who has been accused of wrongdoing, but I could see expanding it to a filer who needs advice regarding what does and does not constitute a legitimate complaint. ("So and so did X; is this important enough for AE or should I do something else?"). This section would have the goal of preventing well-meaning filers from being sanctioned for complaints that they did not know were inappropriate for AE. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The advice to ask no questions is based on a statement by admin Thryduulf: Asking questions was interpreted as bad faith. [1] Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant diffs[edit]

Diffs collected here since February 2016 are meant to indicate that issues are frequently asked/commented upon. All users are welcome to clarify the meaning of their own statements or to request that they be removed.

Admin Liz commenting on the 500 word rule: [2] Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh D talking about "broadly construed": [3] Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether banned users are allowed to report other banned users: AlbinoFerret, EdJohnston and others agreed that Hijiri was in violation when reporting Catflap for violating their shared topic ban, but it is not clear whether this is because of Hijiri's topic ban or because of the interaction ban [4] [5] (though technically Hijiri was following direct instructions by merely asking for clarification and then re-filing at AE). Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 Whether banned users are allowed to report other banned users: AlbinoFerret, EdJohnston and others agreed that Hijiri was in violation when reporting Catflap for violating their shared topic ban, but it is not clear whether this is because of Hijiri's topic ban or because of the interaction ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&curid=12936136&diff=705844367&oldid=705841381] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&curid=12936136&diff=705960889&oldid=705959410] (though technically Hijiri was following direct instructions by merely asking for clarification and then re-filing at AE). [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 03:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
-== Some constructive comments (this is a very good start) ==
-Overall this looks really good.  I would suggest improvements to only a few bits of it:
-* The "Common pitfalls" segment is incorrect in its first and second points (as a matter of clear policy at [[WP:BANEX]]).  Point six is not correct either.  Point three seems open to interpretation (we've seen conflicting admin statements about this), so the safe bet is the one you've written.  Point four is only true if talking about the banned topic while talking about the ban (it's a difference between, e.g., "I'm under a topic ban, so I can't participate in that discussion", versus "I'm under a topic ban because [details of disputes and personalities and pages]").  Point five is clearly correct (and it's why point four cannot categorically be true).  The mistaken perceptions of points 1, 2, and 6 are based on misconstruing negative admin reaction, in a single unusual case, to a long string of repeated questions that they found pestering (1, 2), and continuance of personalized dispute with someone after multiple admin warnings to not do that.  These circumstances do not at all generalize to AE and t-bans broadly.
-* The "I'm not sure how to properly express myself in just 500 words", "The filer has posted a very long list of diffs and complaints", and "I am filing a request for enforcement, but I do not feel that 500 words is enough" points are all the same thing and can be combined.  Readers should be warned that while the limit is not always enforced ("almost never" is an overstatement – it depends on which admins are around), admins consider that they have leeway to enforce it directly, by simple truncation, e.g. deleting the bottom half of the filer's evidence, and AE respondents are apt to judge the merits of the request (including whether a boomerang is warranted) based on the evidence they happen to see when they look, which may be after sloppy truncation.  I've been burned this way directly myself.  Also, in the third version of this material ("I am filing ..."), the suggestion "consider filing separate, concurrent complaints" is an {{em|absolute no-no}}.  This will be interpreted as [[WP:POINT]]/[[WP:LAWYER]]/[[WP:GAMING]]/[[WP:HARASS]] behavior and will severely backfire.
-* "Am I allowed to call witnesses?"  Neither of the scenarios given are accurate.  People who were deeply involved in whatever the issue was (in a way that will be relevant), are accused (by anyone in the proceedings), are mentioned by name, or are being quoted/paraphrased/diffed, should be notified (a simple {{tlx|U|{{var|Username here}}}} at first mention is sufficient if they are not already parties in the proceeding). User (or worse yet, project) talk page notices should be avoided, as they are apt to look like surreptitious canvassing. E-mailed notification will often be specifically mentioned by respondents, and may again give the impression of trying to game the system.
-* Typo: In the "Am I allowed to comment on someone else's AE thread" point, there's a missing "as" in "such AE proceedings".
-* In "The other party is lying ...", the "not detrimental to Wikipedia's process" would be best followed by "or community"; a large number of AE actions (and ANI, and ARBCOM ones) are taken against incivility and other rules that have to do with collegiality, collaboration, NOTHERE behavior, and other community-norms matters that aren't processual.  "Sometimes people lie and sometimes liars are believed" sounds like axe-grinding; this would read better as "Sometimes people lie and sometimes lies are believed".  Typo: "your" does not belong in "proof that your the other party". Also, the sentence containing that type and the sentence before it are redundant with each other and can be merged.
-* "I have been placed under a topic ban. Should I ask admins and other editors ..." is off-base, because it's falsely conflating two things. I should be split into two similar questions, one about relevant admins (answer: Yes per [[WP:BANEX]], if it's done {{em|without straining their patience}}, if it's seeking clarification (not how to test the ban boundaries), and if the admin imposed the ban, block, or other relevant sanctions, or expresses that they may take enforcement action because of a perceived infraction). Then a separate question about asking other editors, including non-relevant admins (answer: Definitely not, as that will be a t-ban violation).
-* "I have been placed under a topic ban. .. What are some good questions to ask ...?" is basically pointless, and "Asking any questions about what you are and are not allowed to do will be interpreted as bad faith" in particular is patently false. It is not correct that there are no good questions to ask (of relevant admins). But every case is different, so there are no model questions anyone could/should attempt to provide.  It would probably be better to say that outright, to refer to BANEX which permits asking for clarifications, and leave it at that.  This entire item can be folded into the admin version of the question above it.
-* Typo: in the "I see other editors adding unsourced ..." point, there's a missing "it" in "but may be best to allow".
-All of the rest of it appears spot-on to me.  The "What is meant by 'broadly construed'?", "... I do not feel that 500 words is enough ...", "The other party is lying ...", and "I want to return to editing the part of Wikipedia from which I have been banned ..." items in particular should be taken seriously to heart, since failure to understand one or more of these is why AE/ARCA discussions usually do not go someone's intended way. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 08:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)