User:Timotheus Canens/AE2

Various notes for AE admins, based on previous AE cases.

Misconduct
AE addresses conduct issues only. Content issues are outside AE's purview.
 * Special case: Abusive sockpuppetry is usually referred to SPI. In easy cases where there's no need to keep a formal record, it may be a good idea to get a checkuser to take a look directly without going through the formal SPI process. In other cases, AE action has been taken at the conclusion of an SPI case without further AE reports.
 * If not indef, the block of the sockmaster usually starts at six months.
 * The following are conduct issues within AE's jurisdiction. This is not an exhaustive list.
 * Edit warring.
 * Battleground conduct (e.g., retaliatory AE requests, AFDs, etc.)
 * Personal attacks, harassment, etc.
 * Tendentious or disruptive editing.
 * This includes (but is not limited to):
 * Misrepresentation or falsification of sources.
 * Using an obviously biased or otherwise sub-par source to support a contentious claim.
 * Persistent editing in a manner favoring a particular entity across multiple articles may be taken as prima facie evidence of biased editing.
 * AE cannot resolve content disputes. However, in rare cases of entrenched content disputes where the two sides are incapable of reaching an agreeable solution by themselves, AE may attempt to impose a neutral process that would result in a binding solution.

Timeliness

 * Usually, edits more than a week old or so cannot form the basis of an enforcement request by themselves, but can be used to establish a pattern of misconduct in conjunction with more recent edits.
 * The time limit is usually more relaxed for low-activity accounts, and for edits demonstrating blatant misconduct that is fundamentally incompatible with encyclopedia building.

Warning
WP:AC/DS requires a warning.
 * Warnings may be given by any editor. They should at a minimum link to the relevant arbitration decision.
 * A user is deemed warned if the warning is on the edit notice of a page and the user edited the page after the warning was added to the edit notice.
 * A user may be found constructively warned if they have previously participated extensively in AE threads related to the topic area, even in the absence of formal warnings.
 * For parties to a case, the case clerk's notification that the case closed with discretionary sanctions enacted may be sufficient for a warning.
 * Previous sanction under the same discretionary sanctions provision may constitute a warning.
 * If the remedy has more specific warning requirements (e.g., WP:ARBSCI), these requirements controls.

Sanctions

 * Common editor-level sanctions include revert restrictions (1RR/day, 1RR/week), interaction bans, topic bans, page bans, and blocks.
 * Interaction bans cover every kind of possible interaction. One-way interaction bans are disfavored due to the strong gaming potential.
 * Topic bans:
 * Topic bans cover the entire topic in all namespaces by default. If you want to make an exception for discussions, make it clear.
 * Topic bans are preferred over multiple page bans.
 * Blocks:
 * Usually blocks longer than a year cannot come under AE authority. For indef blocks, it is common to make an indef "normal" block and a one-year AE block to run concurrently.
 * uw-aeblock is the usual template.
 * Common article-level sanctions include revert restrictions.
 * Article-level sanctions must be noted in the page's edit notice for it to have any effect. Also a good idea to note it on the talk page.