User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy/AEFAQ

Some constructive comments (this is a very good start)
''Housekeeping note.... credit to the original author, which was not me, with permission I copy/pasted it here. And now I'm not sure when I will make time to work on it further. Real life is asserting itself ''NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Overall this looks really good. I would suggest improvements to only a few bits of it: All of the rest of it appears spot-on to me. The "What is meant by 'broadly construed'?", "... I do not feel that 500 words is enough ...", "The other party is lying ...", and "I want to return to editing the part of Wikipedia from which I have been banned ..." items in particular should be taken seriously to heart, since failure to understand one or more of these is why AE/ARCA discussions usually do not go someone's intended way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Common pitfalls" segment is incorrect in its first and second points (as a matter of clear policy at WP:BANEX). Point six is not correct either.  Point three seems open to interpretation (we've seen conflicting admin statements about this), so the safe bet is the one you've written.  Point four is only true if talking about the banned topic while talking about the ban (it's a difference between, e.g., "I'm under a topic ban, so I can't participate in that discussion", versus "I'm under a topic ban because [details of disputes and personalities and pages]"; the latter is a TBAN violation).  Point five is clearly correct (and it's why point four cannot categorically be true).  The mistaken perceptions of points 1, 2, and 6 are based on misconstruing negative admin reaction, in a single unusual case, to a long string of repeated questions that they found pestering (1, 2), and continuance of personalized dispute with someone after multiple admin warnings to not do that.  These circumstances do not at all generalize to AE and TBANs broadly.
 * The "I'm not sure how to properly express myself in just 500 words", "The filer has posted a very long list of diffs and complaints", and "I am filing a request for enforcement, but I do not feel that 500 words is enough" points are all the same thing and can be combined. Readers should be warned that while the limit is not always enforced ("almost never" is an overstatement – it depends on which admins are around), admins consider that they have leeway to enforce it directly, by simple truncation, e.g. deleting the bottom half of the filer's evidence, and AE respondents are apt to judge the merits of the request (including whether a boomerang is warranted) based on the evidence they happen to see when they look, which may be after sloppy truncation.  I've been burned this way directly myself.  Also, in the third version of this material ("I am filing ..."), the suggestion "consider filing separate, concurrent complaints" is an .  This will be interpreted as WP:POINT/WP:LAWYER/WP:GAMING/WP:HARASS behavior and will severely backfire.
 * "Am I allowed to call witnesses?" Neither of the scenarios given are accurate.  People who were deeply involved in whatever the issue was (in a way that will be relevant), are accused (by anyone in the proceedings), are mentioned by name, or are being quoted/paraphrased/diffed, should be notified (a simple  at first mention is sufficient if they are not already parties in the proceeding). User (or worse yet, project) talk page notices should be avoided, as they are apt to look like surreptitious canvassing. E-mailed notification will often be specifically mentioned by respondents, and may again give the impression of trying to game the system.
 * Typo: In the "Am I allowed to comment on someone else's AE thread" point, there's a missing "as" in "such AE proceedings".
 * In "The other party is lying ...", the "not detrimental to Wikipedia's process" would be best followed by "or community"; a large number of AE actions (and ANI, and ARBCOM ones) are taken against incivility and other rules that have to do with collegiality, collaboration, NOTHERE behavior, and other community-norms matters that aren't processual. "Sometimes people lie and sometimes liars are believed" sounds like axe-grinding; this would read better as "Sometimes people lie and sometimes lies are believed".  Typo: "your" does not belong in "proof that your the other party". Also, the sentence containing that typo and the sentence before it are redundant with each other and can be merged.
 * "I have been placed under a topic ban. Should I ask admins and other editors ..." is off-base, because it's falsely conflating two things. It should be split into two similar questions, one about relevant admins (answer: Yes per WP:BANEX, if it's done, if it's seeking clarification (not how to test the ban boundaries), and if the admin imposed the ban, block, or other relevant sanctions, or expresses that they may take enforcement action because of a perceived infraction). Then a separate question about asking other editors, including non-relevant admins (answer: Definitely not, as that will be a TBAN violation).
 * "I have been placed under a topic ban. ... What are some good questions to ask ...?" is basically pointless, and "Asking any questions about what you are and are not allowed to do will be interpreted as bad faith" in particular is patently false. It is not correct that there are no good questions to ask (of relevant admins). But every case is different, so there are no model questions anyone could/should attempt to provide. It would probably be better to say that outright, to refer to BANEX which permits asking for clarifications, and leave it at that.  This entire item can be folded into the admin version of the question above it.
 * Typo: in the "I see other editors adding unsourced ..." point, there's a missing "it" in "but may be best to allow".