Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Arbitration enforcement on a page?

Suppose an uninvolved editor happens to notice a large-scale edit war going on on a particular page that's under discretionary sanctions. (This happened just now at the Teahouse.) What's the correct way to report the edit war so that the sanctions can be applied (assume that all the users involved are {{ds/aware}} already)? The page says it can be used for arbitration enforcement requests related to a particular page, but there doesn't seem to be any option to do that behind the "new enforcement request" link. Do you report all the users involved in the edit war individually? --ais523 00:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ais523: Much like at AN/I, AE will look at every major player in an issue writ large, and nothing stops you from adding more users to the same request provided you do it as or immediately after posting. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano Thanks for letting me know; I decided to edit the template-generated text to refer to multiple users rather than one, and named the request after the page where the edit war is occurring. (It seems best not to name it after either user, as that might be interpreted as taking sides.) --ais523 01:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over community GS enforcement

Moved from AE (diff)

 – -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Just for clarity, should all of these requests for enforcement of the GS go to AN(I)? It was unilaterally moved here by an admin the last time I had put one of these on ANI, so I just want to be clear going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

---

@Red-tailed hawk: Unless there's some RfC or ArbCom motion I overlooked, yes, community GS enforcement is entirely through community processes (AN/I, AN, individual admins' talkpages). Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, as it would be nice to have it done here; but I don't think there's been consensus for that to date.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

So our terminology bites us a bit here. In common parlance DS = ArbCom thing and GS = community thing. If we're getting technical, and what is AE except a place to get technical?, all DS is a part of GS (all squares are rectangles). If something is ArbCom passed it can come to AE while if it is a community passed GS it needs to go to AN/ANI. The current DS reform suggests a way for the community to enable community GS to come to AE but for the time being this venue isn't available to non-arbcom passed sanctions. Hope that helps, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said "community GS", and have amended the section heading and my comment; I don't think it's in dispute that this board has jurisdiction over, say, the ARBPIA GS, much as it has jurisdiction over (almost) any other enforceable arbitration sanction. (Most ArbCom GS is enforced at RFPP, but I do recall Dennis Brown making an ARBPIA GS p-block here a while back.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose this is somewhat separate from the question of if it's wiser to handle these sorts of things at AE or AN(I). If it isn't currently allowed (which appears to be the advice I'm seeing above), then it might be wise to allow it at some future point given that AE appears to function much more civilly when dealing with discretionary sanctions requests than do some other noticeboards. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

GS should go to AN or ANI. I don't recall issuing a GS sanction, but often I will make "standard admin action" sanctions, which are simpler, and often have more flexibility, including being able to appeal at AN/ANI. But getting back to the original question, GS really should be appealed at AN/ANI, primarily because it is beyond the scope of AE, which centers on Arb restrictions, rather than "general" restrictions, like GS. Even the governing policy says "Appeals are made to the administrators' noticeboard and not the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) or to the Arbitration Committee (but case requests can still be filed)." At AN/ANI, the format is such that the community has a larger voice, where at AE, even if there are multiple admins speaking, the action isn't a consensus, it is an action imposed by a single admin that "owns" that action. This is why it is considered wheelwarring to revert an admin close at AE, while it isn't at AN/ANI. AE simply isn't set up for GS "community imposed" restrictions, it is only set up for single admin actions (even if there is a consensus) on very narrow topics, with strict limits on what can be done. GS sanctions can literally be anything the community wants them to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Status of the awareness system?

What is the status of the awareness rules? I know there was talk somewhere of changing them. Have they been changed recently? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Soon Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Applicability of WP:REDACT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Bishonen, Vanamonde93, and Doug Weller: I am in need of a procedural clarification independent of the merit of the case in hand.

It is my belief that WP:REDACT applies to AE — that is, editors cannot fundamentally alter their previous posts after they have been replied to by others. Is that true? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the "correct" answer, but I do have an observation. Rationally, it seems like you shouldn't fundamentally change your comments once they're replied to. However, I've seen tons of people do such a thing at WP:RFAR, so I'm not surprised someone did so here. I suspect it's more common on pages with a strict word limit and un-threaded discussion. I'd suggest a "don't just remove/replace text if it's an important change; don't get upset about it if it's an unimportant change". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Floq. In this case, Elinruby had accused me of deciding on an editor's ethnicity, which I believe, is sanctionable conduct since editors ought to have no business in probing into their colleagues' ethnicity. So, I asked for a diff. In response, Elinruby altered his post and the allegation vanished! I do not find this to be an "unimportant change."TrangaBellam (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It's true on talk pages. People certainly changed their statements quite a bit in the Gitz6666 saga, but perhaps nobody invoked the rule and it's that simple. My point however is that as a party to an AE complaint, TB should not be reverting statements made in the complaint, and it's emblematic of their conduct in this case. Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

in hopes of moving discussion forward: I consider the phrase I omitted to be an off-topic aside about how I can understand why Minaro123 would be frustrated. His frustration is not the point however; the point is that the complaint is fundamentally about content that TB doesn't like.Elinruby (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh; if this is part of a larger dispute, I guess I'll go elsewhere. Just looking for a place to make a helpful generic comment, I don't want to get involved in other peoples' fights. There are fewer and fewer places to do that on WP. Everybody hates everybody 24/7. Good luck to you both. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this happens but I think it should be an exceptional thing and generally avoided. I’ve struck through comments of mine I’ve decided we’re wrong. And if it makes the reply make no sense it shouldn’t be done. Ditto if it’s a criticism of another editor, it should be struck through. And of course it can look bad to someone looking at the history. I haven’t looked at the case. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Minaro123 has said that he is from Dha, a village of Minaro people. When I first encountered him was talking about the village elders there. We got past that, lengthily, but the accusation TB is trying to suggest simply isn't there. If TB seriously didn't know his ethnicity then I don't know what to say. It's all over the talk page. Elinruby (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No Floq, we need to know in the abstract, so thank you. I think TB is saying it's important because supposedly I made an accusation, shrug, and no doubt will accuse me of making another now. I really need to go but if we can establish that there's a real rule that is simply not usually invoked then of course I'll abide by it. I am more interested in since when do the parties get to revert other people's statements. Elinruby (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Three editors acting in concert

I am intending to bring a matter here where three editors have acted in concert over perhaps a half-dozen post. Can the request be combine in some way under a single section or must they be raised separately? If they can be combined, how would this be done? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)