Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/Arbitration report
Arbitration report
AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?
The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases and closed one case. Two cases are currently open.
Open cases
Racepacket (Week 2)
During the week, 44 kilobytes was submitted in on-wiki evidence, while proposals and comments were also submitted in the workshop by arbitrators, parties, and others. The evidence phase is currently set to close on 14 May 2011.
Tree shaping (Week 2)
During the week, 30 kilobytes was submitted in on-wiki evidence, while in the workshop, proposals and comments were submitted by parties and others. The parties also submitted responses to the questions posed by drafter Elen of the Roads. The evidence phase is currently set to close on 12 May 2011.
Closed case
Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling (AEsh) (Week 9)
This case was opened to review the handling of AE sanctions (including the classification, imposition and reversal of such sanctions, the relevant processes, and whether administrators who regularly work in this area are appropriately receptive to feedback from uninvolved users). 24 editors submitted on-wiki evidence, and several users submitted proposals in the workshop, including drafter Roger Davies. The proposed decision which was drafted by several arbitrators, attracted votes from 13 arbitrators, and the case came to a close three days ago.
- What is the effect of the decision and what does it tell us?
- Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is reminded to adhere to procedure, in light of his having substantially reversed an arbitration enforcement (AE) block without the requisite consensus or permission.
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take care to communicate more effectively in future arbitration enforcement actions.
- Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) is cautioned and reminded to discuss matters more circumspectly and to avoid drama-creating rhetoric.
- Administrators (admins) are advised and reminded to abide by the principles of this decision. As trusted members of the Community, admins are expected to follow Wikipedia policies, perform their duties to the best of their abilities, as well as learn from experience and justified criticisms of their actions.
- The Committee appreciates the work performed by admins who address AE requests; such admins handle one of the project's most sensitive and stressful admin tasks. To share the workload, the Committee encourages more admins, particularly experienced ones, to become involved in this task. More administrators are also urgently needed to handle other tasks at the front lines of addressing user-conduct issues, such as review of unblock requests on-wiki and on the unblock-l mailing list.
- Admins should exercise care and judgment when using their tools. Because of the priority given to enforcement of discretionary sanctions (delegated by the Committee), admins must be deliberate and careful in applying their discretion to impose sanctions. In general, such sanctions should be imposed in situations where there has been a serious violation or a pattern of violations of a remedy contained in a Committee decision, and prior warnings have not resolved the problem. When it is not entirely clear whether a sanction is appropriate, or when an admin knows that there is a division of opinion regarding whether a sanction is warranted, and there is no pressing need for immediate action, it may be best for an administrator to raise the issue in the discussion venue for Arbitration Enforcement and seek a consensus, rather than to act unilaterally.
- When giving a warning based on a Committee decision, the admin should ensure the warning is clear and unambiguous. The warning should also identify the misconduct, advise how the editor may mend their ways, and specify the link to the decision authorising the sanctions. When imposing a sanction, the admin should provide notice of the sanction imposed which specifies the term of the sanction, the misconduct for which the sanction has been imposed, as well as the process of appealing the sanction. The admin should respond to appropriate questions raised by the warned or sanctioned editor.
- Discretionary sanctions have an established and clearly defined appeal process which must be adhered to. Overturning arbitration enforcement actions out of process is strictly prohibited per longstanding principle. Discretionary sanctions should be used with caution where the Community is already dealing with the specific issue through dispute resolution processes.
- When an admin's actions are disagreed with or overturned, the admin should assess why others disagreed with or overturned the action, and take this into account in future decision-making. The admin should not take this as a personal rebuke; over time, every active admin working anywhere on the project will have some of his or her actions disagreed with or overturned (just as every arbitrator sometimes finds himself or herself in the minority on an issue voted on by the Committee).
Motions
Two motions were passed in this case:
- The case remedy that banned YMB29 (talk · contribs) from editing the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics topic has been terminated. YMB29 is now subject to a 1RR restriction from the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles"). YMB29 was reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions, should he violate them.
- An editor who is restricted from editing in a topic area under a Committee decision "may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. In considering such a request, the Committee will give significant weight to, among other factors, whether the editor in question has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project."
Discuss this story