Template talk:Sanction enforcement request

Admin only discussion section[edit]

I think having a separate section for "administrators only" goes against Wikipedia:Administrators#No_big_deal. Administrators have the ability to block, but they shouldn't be given a special status in discussions. The template should limit the "Result" section to the decision of the administrator only. All discussion, including that by administrators, should be in the "Comments by other editors" section.

As an example:

=== Comments by other editors ===

Blah blah blah. User1
- Blah blah blah blah. Admin1
  - Blah. Admin2
Blah blah. Admin3

== Result concerning {{{User against whom enforcement is requested}}} ==

This section is only for administrator decisions. All discussion and response belongs in the section above.

Blocked, because blah blah. Admin1
No action, because blah blah blah. Admin2

-Evil saltine (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general terms. When I drafted the template, my main aim was to separate the contributions of uninvolved editors from those of the partisan supporters and peanut gallery that any divisive dispute attracts. It seemed easiest to conflate this with an area for admin discussions, because only admins can (or may) take enforcement action. As long as we're discussing the format, though, judging from recent experience my preference would be: one section each per nonthreaded statement by everybody, and one section for threaded discussion among uninvolved admins. Sandstein 07:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A separate section for each person might be a good idea. The only thing I disagree with is having a discussion section where only admins are allowed to post. Admins have the ability to carry out actions, but that doesn't make their opinions more important than those of other serious editors. From Wikipedia:Administrators: "while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important, merely 'being an administrator' is not." As an aside, I think that the problem with having a section for uninvolved editors only is that there would be disagreements about what constitutes being "involved" in a case. Evil saltine (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011[edit]

Coming here from the actual enforcement page, trying to see why we are splitting out admin opinion's, I see that there was no consensus on this:

The section was made "admin only" 00:27, 22 June 2009, by Jehochman. There was not debate on this at the time as recorded here on this talk page.
Concern was voiced by Evil saltine (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2009
There no consensus at that time for it's inclusion, but no one was bold enough to change it.
A change similar to mine was commited 14:06, 5 May 2010 by Hipocrite, "(Boldly modifying template to prevent admin-only discussion sections)."
This change was reverted without use of the talk page.

As this section has been used to try and exclude "normal" editors from expressing opinions elsewhere, and as there was no agreement on it's existance, I'm going to change the format a little bit.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this had been general practice for over a year, I disagree that there was "no consensus". Of course, it's fine to open a new discussion on it, but simply changing practice because you disagree with a discussion from 2009, seems a bit hasty? --El on ka 05:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not clear what the additional words meant, so I've restored the text. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclosure: I was asked to look at this thread by another user) I would also reverse the edit, but for a different reason. This edit seems to presume that any significant AE closes ("result") will involve "performing an enforcement action" - not convinced that is the case. If it is the case, then the wording is redundant, if it's not then it excludes closes that don't involve "performing an enforcement action". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see you being asked to comment on your talk page, FT. Can you say who asked you and where? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring proposal[edit]

When I drafted the template, my intention was for this section to contain only a note of the outcome of the request by the admin who closes the request, and not any threaded discussion. Perhaps the section should simply be removed? The closer can summarize the outcome in the hatnote. Admins have no special authority in discussions, and they can in principle contribute to the discussion section on the same terms as any other uninvolved editor. Since AE is not a consensus-based process, the discussion is of limited significance in any case. To avoid the discussion section from being swamped with bickering among involved editors, we could, as has been discussed above, ask them to limit themselves to nonthreaded statements. Then we could structure the the template like this:

(hatnote with closing summary)
Request
Statements by involved editors

Statement by the editor against whom enforcement is requested
Statement by A
Statement by B
...

Threaded discussion among uninvolved editors

This structure, however, has the problem that there will be bickering about who is uninvolved and who isn't. If we want to avoid that, we can ask all participants to limit themselves to nonthreaded statements, with threaded discussion limited to the administrators participating in the enforcement process:

(hatnote with closing summary)
Request
Statements

Statement by the editor against whom enforcement is requested
Statement by A
Statement by B
...

Threaded discussion among uninvolved administrators

Whicht approach do you prefer? Sandstein 10:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see some more complete comments, thank you Sandstein. My concern is that if, as opposed to the iterative editing process, we're going to work it all out here, your proposal has several assumptions built into it. Perhaps if we could instead start with the least common denominator, make sure we have consensus, and then build upwards? I'd propose that we gauge agreement on "Admins have no special authority in discussions." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I didn't say it explicitly, but I agree that they don't. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In recent months, the Result section has been used for threaded discussion among uninvolved administrators. Some admins choose to comment in their own sections, possibly to show they are involved. The AE board often has a backlog and it often has extremely long and messy cases. Closing AEs is not the most popular admin task. As a practical matter, allowing visiting admins to quickly see what opinions other admins have already given should help speed up closures. The closer is not bound to consider only the opinions of other admins, he should consider everyone's comments. In some cases the only *uninvolved* people in the case will be the admins, so having a separate section has practical value. It may even have practical value for the non-admins so they can quickly see the current state of the decision process, and see if any information is being requested that they could supply. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with EdJohnston, especially about the fact that AE discussions can become messy, and having a section for uninvolved administrators is a great help to anyone who is coming new to the discussion. I would also point out that in many cases, ArbCom has specifically empowered "uninvolved administrators" to make the decision on which sanction to place. In cases where administrators have disagreed on the best course of action, it has been helpful to have a separate section where those administrators could discuss the disagreement, and come to a consensus on how to proceed. --El on ka 17:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section is helpful (in its current state) because it allows us to see the views of admins allowed by ArbCom to take enforcement action, and it has mostly worked well. I can't see any reason or pressing need to change it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a not-totally-neutral pointer to this debate on a better-trafficed page. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the section was originally intended to do, the fact is that it is now used for threaded discussions among uninvolved admins. I don't see a problem with the current arrangement, per EdJohnston and Elonka; and I frankly think it would be counterproductive to remove that section just to avoid the alleged appearance of "special authority in discussions". Uninvolved admins get their own section because they are the only people empowered to act upon AE requests; just as SPI clerks, checkusers, and patrolling admins get their own section at SPI. T. Canens (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the pointer, I came to look. I agree that "Admins have no special authority in discussions." However, it sounds as though, for practical reasons, it would be prudent to keep things as they are -- to ease the burden of admins reviewing these issues and to ease the strain on ArbCom as well. --Habap (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments section[edit]

I think the Comments by others about the request concerning {{{User against whom enforcement is requested}}} section is unnecessary and in fact does more harm than good. Is there any reason why anybody other than involved users should be commenting in these requests? Having the same faces supporting or opposing the same people every time an AE request is opened does not benefit anybody at all. AE threads should follow a simple format: 1. The accusation. 2. The response by the accused. 3. Discussion among uninvolved admins as to whether there was a violation and what should be done about it. 4. Result. nableezy - 20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to be a community and come to decisions as a community. Admins are not overlords and uninvolved editors who are familiar with the concerns sometimes say some important things. You also have benefited greatly from having so much input in requests for enforcement against you. I do agree that it gets a little out of hand and bogged down but that is the price we pay to keep everything open.Cptnono (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could possibly exclude involved editors and still allow uninvolved editors. This could be achieved by adding "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved users. Comments by involved users will be removed" under where it says "Comments by others about the request concerning {{{User against whom enforcement is requested}}}". PhilKnight (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well organized editors - whether involved in the particular or "uninvolved in it" but with a strong POV on the topic, can create the impression through exaggerated and even false accusations that one editor is a terrible editor guilty of all sorts of violations. If people want to add specific accusations or defenses that one of the parties has forgotten, they should contact the person on their web page and let them decide if it's relevant. Busy admins can't help being influenced by a lot of people chiming in on the same questionable accusations. I've seen it a number of times. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would just spill conversation on to other pages. Reminders from editors should be sufficient to prevent too much off topic discussion. A renewed emphasis on that would be useful. Yes it can get a bogged down but there is too much to lose by removing people from the conversation. This proposal completely circumvents common practice seen on other discussion pages while limiting community input. I have not been happy to see multiple editors defend editors when they are in the wrong which I believe influenced decisions (I can point to a couple in Nableezy's cases alone) but that is what consensus is all about sometimes. Cptnono (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While fully understanding nableezy's concern, I tend to think we shouldn't restrict the participation of involved editors in this way. "Involved" does not always mean "unhelpful". Of course, if editors abuse their ability to participate in an AE discussion the editors can have all sorts of juicy sanctions imposed upon them.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing involved people from commenting would in all likelihood simply generate lots of tangential discussion about who is involved and who is not, which is pretty much the last thing we want. I don't like the idea. Also per Mkativerata. T. Canens (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that the admins who close the request have access to good information. Sometimes involved editors can bring in useful diffs. Also, people who are aggrieved want a chance to be heard, so everyone should be allowed to comment. The better structure that the AE reports use (with the various sections) I think makes it possible to close issues more reliably that at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page this template refers to[edit]

For some forgotten reason I put this on my watch list, but did not see on the page what article it specifically refers to. Maybe Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement?? I'm going to unwatch, but if it's helpful for that to be clear, maybe someone could put that info in explanatory material on the main page. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template is used on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (or "WP:AE"). Yes, that page is the replacement for the process previously hosted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement. AGK [•] 11:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes[edit]

I've changed the wording of the last section a bit [1] to better reflect what appears to be the intent behind the separate section. The key distinction is that between involved and uninvolved editors, rather than admins and non-admins (and in practice, the previous convention has been only loosely observed from what I've seen).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the above discussion differently. If adminship is no big deal than admins are editors. Just being an admin should not grant privilege to comment in a section that has more prominence. This is especially true since we have kind of only recently (6 months?) seen involved editors who are admins not commenting there. Involved is involved. Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]