User:Timotheus Canens/AE

These are some suggestions on how to make your case effectively at Arbitration Enforcement.

In general

 * 1) Be candid.  Attempting to mislead or deceive is a very bad idea and may result in sanctions.
 * 2) Be brief, precise, and professional. Avoid exaggeration, sarcasm, or a confrontational tone. Policies such as WP:NPA and WP:CIV are enforced at AE with extra force.

For filers of requests

 * 1) Check that your case satisfies the basic requirements:
 * AE only enforces an enforceable arbitration remedy. An enforceable arbitration remedy is generally either a specific editing restriction (such as a topic ban) or a topic-wide measure (such as discretionary sanctions). Cautions, warnings, reminders, etc. are not enforceable. Principles and findings of fact are neither enforceable nor remedies.
 * There must be at least one recent edit that is alleged to violate the remedy. If all the edits cited are old, the case will likely be closed as stale without action, and the filer may face sanctions for filing a meritless request. As a rule of thumb, edits are not recent if they are more than a few days old.
 * In some rare cases the age of the edits may be overlooked if the circumstances make a sanction appropriate. If you make a request that does not contain any recent edits, you must explain what special circumstances make a sanction is appropriate despite the staleness of the edits.
 * 1) Avoid excessive commentary. The core of the request is the diffs that are evidence of misconduct. Brief explanations should be added to allow the admin to understand what the diffs are intended to illustrate. Use the additional comments section only to present the necessary background of the dispute. AE admins generally examine the diffs and reach their own conclusions about them. Extensive commentary is of little assistance and makes it more difficult to get to the point of the request.
 * 2) List only instances of actual misconduct. Never use a scattershot approach - "throwing mud at the wall until something sticks" not only hurts your credibility, but is also a sanctionable misconduct itself if done repeatedly. If you are listing a series of edits to establish a pattern of questionable behavior, make clear that this is so.
 * 3) Include diffs of any previous warnings given to the reported editor. This is very important.
 * 4) Remember to notify the subject of the request.

For subjects of a request for enforcement

 * 1) Always respond to a request, even if you think it is meritless. If you are unable to respond immediately for some reason, leave a brief note to that effect. AE admins are usually willing to accommodate reasonable requests for extra time to respond. It's always better to respond because some AE admins may be unwilling to review a case in detail until they hear from the other side, to avoid prejudging the issue. By leaving even a brief note, you let the admin know that you have actually seen the request, and that they can proceed to review it.
 * 2) Avoid bringing in extraneous matters. Limit your response to (1) the diffs listed in the request and (2) any diffs from the same incident you think admins should consider. Do not bring in diffs from another dispute unless there's a very good reason for it.
 * 3) Always comment on the content of the report: the conduct of the reporter is irrelevant to the question whether you should be sanctioned. Remember that it is your conduct that is at issue, not that of the reporter. Even if the reporter misbehaved, that's not an excuse for you to misbehave as well.
 * 4) Never, never, never, never file a retaliatory request. That's about the fastest way to get you a long, long, long topic ban, if not worse.

For other editors who wish to comment

 * 1) Confine your comments to the AE report; this is not an opportunity to argue content, policy, or personal disputes with either the alleged transgressor or the filing party. This is not an opportunity to right past wrongs, real or perceived.
 * 2) Be concise. The AE administrators are more likely to ignore a "wall of text" rather than consider it a valuable contribution.
 * 3) Arguing with another user at an AE report is liable to get you sanctioned as well.