User talk:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions

No personal comments sanction

One of the things that triggers drama is an editor making personal observations about the supporters of one side. Most of the comments are directed against Trump supporters and include remarks about them being racist, anti-science, ignorant, etc. How can we stop off-the-cuff comments which contribute nothing to the discussion but yet allow legitimate comments when relevant (e.g., discussion about Trump's climate change policies and why/how they have support of voters)? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Should make it clear that applies to referring to a group of editors along with a single editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

[1] ~Awilley (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy in reporting sanction

Notification usually happens already. I would hesitate before setting this as a requirement for repeat offenders. Otherwise we'll get: violation - fix after a few hours, wait a couple days, violation - fix after a few hours, and so on. I also don't want to prevent admins from taking immediate action if they deem it necessary, regardless of the editor was notified or not. Finally, editors know they're breaking a restriction in some cases (e.g., accusing another editor of being a paid shill for Putin). This is not an inadvertent violation of the sometimes-tricky consensus-required restriction and really doesn't an explanation of why it's going to get an neditor sanctioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:, so the goal here is to try to change the culture of reporting. Right now there is a big emphasis on getting users from the opposing POV sanctioned. Topic bans and indef blocks are ideal because they completely remove the editor, but any sanction (short blocks, warnings, etc) will do because those can be brought up later when asking for the larger sanctions. Editors will sometimes report violations on the talk pages of admins they see as friendly to their cause, hoping to get a quick block instead of reporting it to a noticeboard that requires notifying the editor (thereby risking the chance that the editor remedy the problem before an admin can act). I recall a certain editor that we both know actually privately emailing an admin and successfully getting an opponent blocked for an incredibly minor and completely unintentional 1RR violation. Heck, I've had people email me asking for sanctions.

Anyway I want to change the emphasis from trying to get others sanctioned to trying to get others to correct their behavior before administrative intervention is needed. Often editor-to-editor talk page warnings just turn into fights because editors are rude to each other, using generic templates and being accusatory and demanding. (This is a good thing for you if your talk page warning is just the first step towards trying to get an editor sanctioned, because the editor is more likely to bite back instead of fixing the problem.) I want to fix that by giving people a simple form to follow: "Hi, I believe that you have violated [link to rule] with this edit [diff of edit violating the rule]." Editors who don't remedy their problems after that deserve the sanction, but someone subject to the "no personal comments" sanction who slipped up and said "I know Trump supporters hate science but here you have to follow reliable sources" has a chance to retract the first part of that sentence before an admin steps in with a ban. This, I think, is the path of least disruption, when editors police themselves. Things get messier when admins get involved, (and by extension, messier still when Arbcom gets involved). None of this though prevents an admin from getting involved at any point in the process and imposing whatever sanction they see fit for blatant violations.

For repeat violators, I would hope that the annoyance of having to repeatedly correct themselves would be sufficient motivation to stop screwing up. But if not I'd rather have a user who screws up and consistently corrects their mistakes than a user who stonewalls when challenged. In any case I would hope that the general reduction in background noise would make the real disruptive users stick out more.

Sorry for the essay. Does that somewhat address your concerns? ~Awilley (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Awilley I'm not sure if you got my response to your email, but if you didn't, then let me know and I'll say it here. I just wanted to point out that this one is something that could end up being incumbent upon the admins. In short, any admin about to sanction someone will need to check that the editor to be sanctioned had been given a chance to self-correct. I think it should be specified not only that a reporting editor must notify the editor they intend to report, but must prove that they did so when actually reporting. Of course, that still becomes incumbent upon the admins to not act without seeing that proof, but that's not so much of a burden.

Also, I think this should apply to the whole topic area; not be used as a sanction against individual editors. It's not entirely clear if this is the intention or not (I notice it doesn't end with "sanction", but it's still included in a list of possible sanctions). That was a part of my email, so apologies if I'm repeating myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a really good point. I'll add some language requiring the editor to link to the notification. I hadn't meant for this or any of the sanctions to be a blanket sanction for the whole topic area, just sanctions that could be applied liberally to the more battleground-y editors. It would probably be a good thing to apply to the whole area but I hesitate to add even more complicated rules to the ones we already have in place. ~Awilley (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That's completely understandable. Rather than going through saying "this applies to the topic, this can be applied to an editor at an admins's discretion", it might be worth considering taking just a few of these, such as the "no bludgeoning", "auto-boomerang" and "courtesy in reporting" sanctions and simply applying those to the entire topic, then just enforcing them with the 1-week non-escalating bans. There are pros and cons to that sort of blanket approach, but two pro that strike me are that 1) it's completely fair as everyone is subject to it; and 2) it's little more than a more systemic approach to the existing policy. It would be difficult for an editor, topic banned under this system to successfully appeal at AE, even if the appeal considered only the existing policy and not the topic-level sanctions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

For me, adding an extra layer of complexity to already complex sanctions outweighs the benefits. Normal editors shouldn't have to count the number of edits they're making per day to article talk pages as required by the Anti-filibuster sanction. That's just for users who consistently abuse their talk page privileges by trying to down out everyone else by repeating their own argument over and over. Similarly the "courtesy" sanction is meant for users who abuse administrative processes in trying to get sanctions to stick to their opponents, not normal editors who occasionally report genuinely disruptive users. ~Awilley (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Enforcement: 1-week non-escalating topic ban

Interesting idea. I would probably go with ten days and change "default" to usual. Blocks should also be 1 week/10 days - no leniency for time already served. How do we make it clear that blatant violations will not get these special sanctions? For example, if a new editor comes in and immediately starts disrupting, they're going to get indefinitely topic banned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Does this solve the problem for blatant violations?

On the 7vs10 days, I am aiming for a sanction that is significant to be annoying to users, but reasonable enough that it won't create more drama than it's worth. I personally like the 7 day option because it's easiest for users to remember (10AM on Tuesday to 10AM on Tuesday). On the blocks, the purpose of the block is to enforce the topic ban for users who lack the self control to enforce it themselves. Someone who slips up on day 6 shouldn't have a worse punishment (6 day topic ban + 7 day block) than someone who violates the topic ban right out of the gate (0.5 day topic ban + 7 day block). The other thing on 7vs10 is that for many users these days the entry in the block log is a much bigger deal than the actual block duration. A 1-day block is almost as bad as a 7 day block, and there's basically no difference between 7 and 10 days except that the 10 days feels less fair. ~Awilley (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of converting a violated topic ban into a block of the same duration. It's got a certain poetry to it that will appeal to folks' sense of justice, plus it neatly removes a problematic editor from a growing dispute without the usual mess of repeated topic ban violations that it takes before someone is blocked these days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

considering that the proposal above is intended as a way to deal with relatively minor problems, escalating it into a block is a sure method of converting minor problems into major ones. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: A block would be an absolute last resort and I don't think it would come to that very often. By the time we reach the point of a block, the offending user will:

1. have violated the sanction (a minor problem as you pointed out),
2. have been politely approached on their talk page and asked to fix the problem (via self-revert, refactor, whatever) and have refused to fix it, opting instead to risk the judgement of an admin
3. have then violated the resulting 1-week topic ban.

This puts the user very much in control of their destiny. The only way an accidental slip-up could lead to a block is if the user flatly refuses to fix their own error. See the section at the bottom of the page User:Awilley/Special_discretionary_sanctions#Instructions_for_users_reporting_violations. Perhaps I need to add a sentence to each of the individual sections pointing down to that so people don't miss it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Limiting how quickly events can be documented here.

I think a topic-wide restriction on how quickly editors can add information about a political newsworthy event might help a lot. @Masem:, I know you feel much the same way, so I'm pinging as I mentioned at AE. I think it's something that might need a little discussion to work out precisely, however. I think waiting at least a week is a good idea, but I don't want to immediately punish anyone who jumps the gun. Just, maybe, include such too-soon additions in the list of edits exempt from 1RR or possibly even 3RR, so editors who overstep can simply be corrected. Of course, editors who edit war over this sort of stuff can be dealt with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

To me its not so much documenting key factuall, non-controvesial events that creates the problem, its the rush to include "talking head" coverage of those events (with no lack of shortage from RSes for these) without knowing the long-term impact of the event that creates the behavioral problems in editors. Editors should be very careful about getting into the reactions that happen to these events, to a point where reactions shouldn't be added until after some time has passed to assure that documenting the reactions are appropriate, or that there's some discussion on the talk page about inclusion. This is where it becomes rather hard to the mix of content and behavioral issues. --Masem (t) 15:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's already a policy-based distinction between "analysis" and claims of fact, so I can see how what you're saying could work. The problem with what you're saying is users trying to use talking heads to support claims of fact. And then there's the problem of determining who's a talking head and who's a journalist. Fox News especially seems to intentionally blur this line as much as possible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You'd think there would be one, but there isn't. A lot of this comes down to editors pointing to UNDUE and saying "all these people are talking about it, we must include it", which, in a 24/7 news cycle, no longer really is true or appropriate. Fixing UNDUE is a separate issue.

But I would think editors have enough common sense to be able to recognize uncontested statements of fact that have long-term relevance, and "assertions of facts" from talking heads trying to put their own spin on things, to know where to draw the line. I have a feeling that knowing where that line is is being blurred by personal feelings and opinions on matters, and that's where some type of behavioral aspects can be brought in. How, I don't immediately know. --Masem (t) 15:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR touches upon the subject, but mostly to describe editor analysis. I thought there was something in WP:V, but I'm not finding it. That's a shame, but I think it leaves us at looking to discouraging all information about an event for a time, just to make sure we keep the BS out. I know that I -like many others- don't even bother to check WP for recent news stories, not just because I don't trust the coverage it will get here so soon, but because half the time, it doesn't even occur to me that WP will have information on it, yet. Anyone using WP for their news is doing themselves a serious disservice and should stop. NPR, BBC and AP are much better places to get the news, even if you want to ensure you're not getting "biased" news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Going back to an RFC I started related to NOT:NEWS, there is concern that if we apply too strong a limitation/delay for updating pages on controversial topics, we equivalently should delay updating on non-controversial events, which is not a desired goal, nor are these articles ever problematic in keeping up to date. There are nearly no problems on updates on breaking stories related to disasters or attacks, outside of massive "reaction" sections, (which is partially related to this), and for existing topics, new updates that have long term significance (based on editor judgement) such as new casting information for a movie in production are readily added without any problems. This unfortunately leads us to a situation where "I know it when I see it" as the best way to describe what the problem with recent updates actually is, very hard to make a definitive line on this. --Masem (t) 16:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I would apply this only to AmPol, myself (hence why I'm mentioning it here, where it only takes admins' discretion to enact a sanction). Within that topic, I don't think there's much political news that's "non-controversial" in the sense we use that term in other topics. One thing we could do is list some exceptions, like:

• Results of a vote, either a public vote on an office or a House/Congressional vote on a bill.
• Brief statements about scheduled events. For example, what Trump talked about (but not specifically what he said) during the Helsinki meeting with Putin.

I'm pretty sure every other news event in politics these days is controversial. We could also do a blanket ban on "reaction" sections for any news event, but I'm pretty sure that would need to be enacted as a full policy. I think a good enough proposal would pass an RfC, tho. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly not crazy about the idea of putting a throttle on how quickly you can update articles to reflect recent news. I agree with the premise that it is problematic for editors to try to update articles with every "controversy of the day" that is being talked about on the cable news channels. (As a side note it's always interesting to see editors switch sides based on whether the recent news is a positive or a negative thing for their particular point of view, with one group arguing an event is clearly notable and the other group saying "let's wait and see.") That said, this proposal seems CREEPY to me, and I'm not convinced the positives outweigh the negatives. There are some events that are clearly notable enough to add immediately, and it is impossible for us to predict in advance what these events might be. That's why we need to rely on editorial judgement, and by extension, on editors who consistently exercise good editorial judgement (as opposed to those whose judgement is consistently compromised by their point of view). I think a better solution to the problem is to try to create an environment where those editors who put the encyclopedia above their personal points of view can have a stronger voice and don't get drowned out and dragged down by POV-pushers with too much time on their hands. That was one of the motivations behind the anti-filibuster sanction: to throttle those who consistently engage in long WP:IDHT arguments.

TLDR: The ability to quickly update articles with recent news is not the problem. The problem is editors who abuse that ability to push their point of view. ~Awilley (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you about the root of the problem. If we got all the POV pushers out of politics, there'd be no need for this suggestion. It would do nothing but slow down the project. But right now, we've got POV pushers in politics, and just like with the anti-filibustering sanction, this is designed to create an inhospitable environment for them. Being forced to wait a few days isn't going to bother neutral editors, but it will drive POV pushers up the wall.

Side argument about quality of content, not as important as what I said above:
I'm not suggesting that some of these events may turn out not to be notable (we're really good at figuring that out already), but that the quality of the content in the days immediately following an event is way lower due to the lower quality of sources. Take a page like Unite the Right rally, and compare the section on Trump's comments from the day after and from two days after. It's a huge difference in quality, and not just due to the editing. Check out the dates on many of those sources. Now, compare that to the current version and look how much stronger it is, with sourced analysis that isn't characterized entirely by either left-wing hysteria or right-wing defensiveness, the way it was in the immediate aftermath. One part that worries me is how, once we get content in that clearly belongs (it's WP:DUE or WP:NOTABLE), the low-quality initial form that content takes must have a large influence on subsequent material. So material which non-neutrally skews left in the first could of days gets right-leaning counterpoints added to it, instead of being simply re-written to be more neutral. Obviously this isn't always the case, but it's certainly the case sometimes.

It's the same basic principle as all of the others: For example, the thicker skin sanction is actually a horrible idea in a typically well-behaved topic. Editors enforcing our policies on each other without resorting to the drama boards or complaining to admins is not a problem. It's the constant bickering that results when POV pushers are doing it. Also, for the record, I don't think being a POV pusher is a permanent condition. Editors can wise up. I know I've done some POV pushing in the past, which is part of the reason I stopped editing in politics. "Getting the POV pushers out" means getting some perennial POV pushers out of the topic, but also getting the inner POV-pusher out of a number of editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This is where at least having some enforced time-delay or discussion requirement to include reaction and commentary to an otherwise factual event might help. We need to find some thing that helps to "condition" (for lack of a better word) these types of editors to not jump up and react to the latest explosion of news, but give pause and see if the event actually holds merit. --Masem (t) 20:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Masem, When you say "reaction and commentary" I am imagining stuff like the "Reactions" sections on newly-created mass shooting articles where we quote everybody and their dog offering thoughts and prayers and saying how despicable the shooting was. Also quoting congresspeople on the latest Trump-created scandal. Is that what you're trying to clamp down on? That kind of stuff annoys me as well, but are we allowed to police content like that?

@MPants, Lots of good points. I agree it would be better to try to take the POV-pusher out of editors than trying to take them out of the topic area. Being passionate about something is a good thing for editors as long as they can channel that passion into good editing instead of partisan fighting. I haven't had time to review the article sections you linked (currently out of town for a wedding) but I have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about. I often think about it in terms of a pendulum. If you start it out at one extreme it tends to swing to the other extreme and then back again until you have a fractured article stuffed with POV content from both sides. But if you start the pendulum in the middle the motivation to swing it is largely gone. ~Awilley (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

But if you start the pendulum in the middle the motivation to swing it is largely gone. That is exactly what I was getting at. In truth, I'm a little shocked at how well you seem to have understood what I was saying here (it's pretty par for the course for everyone to misinterpret everyone else here).

By the way, enjoy the wedding! We'll get into it more when you get back. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What you call reactions is what I believe too. I wouldn't call managing reactions as "policing", but keeping the weight of NOT#NEWS and IINFO in mind. When you compare similar controversies of yesteryear like the Watergate scandal or Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination (the later I remember very well "dominating" news, but that's when news was 3 times at day at most) to the news articles of today, we have far too much detail, because we have a near infinite amount of press sourcing that could be used thanks to 24/7 reporting and the Internet. It's why we're an encyclopedia, not meant to be a newspaper and should try to keep these relatively lightweight until they become something more significant. And then you add in the POV aspects MPants describes, and that's where this all can spiral out of control. --Masem (t) 21:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As a unfortunately convenient live example, the issues over Sarah Jeong make for a good case for why we should be careful with "live updates". --Masem (t) 16:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The sanctions Awilley describes here are aimed at moderating editor behavior. The restriction proposed in this section is aimed at moderating article content and I'm not going to play any part in that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I can definitely see the fundamental difference between the two, but we have lots of restrictions with the express purpose of moderating article content. So yeah, it's a fundamental difference, but not a good/bad one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Hmmm. The only content-related restrictions I've ever placed were to enforce to outcomes of RFCs. How do you define a content-related restriction? If you're thinking about something like 500/30 I don't consider that a content-related restriction as an extended confirmed editor can add the content to the article that is suggested by a non-extended confirmed editor on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm actually thinking a bit more generally than that. I'm saying that WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:RS and particularly WP:BLP all pretty strictly moderate moderate content. And this one seems less restrictive to me, as it doesn't ever prohibit certain content (the way BLP does, for example), it just says we must wait before adding it, to see what (if anything) newer sources, which are further removed from the content, have to say about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

To me, from what Mpants had said, if we know there's something controversial that has just broken in the news to a topic, and there's clear editing behavior problems over adding that content (and this includes both pushing to add, and pushing to remove), that's where a restriction of limiting any edits related to the controversy to 1RR for something like a month from the onset of the controversial aspect, so that no editor is trying to force a certain point, and thus discourage the behavioral problems. Ideally, if the behavior is so bad, then maybe blocking anyone from adding about it until that month is up or until a clear consensus is demonstrated in the talk page. --Masem (t) 03:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

All those policies and guidelines are a result of broad community consensus (with a push from the WMF). There's no community consensus on how to exactly implement WP:NOTNEWS point #2 and I won't be using discretionary sanctions to mandate an interpretation (other admins can take their chances, of course). Like it or not, some articles chronicle current ongoing events (e.g., Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)) and the weight of each incident related to the event is often disputed. We already have WP:1RR and consensus-required active for all content in that article. What, specifically, are you asking to be added? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a different between documenting the events, and detailing the events. We should be up to date on outright uncontested facts, but all the behavioral problems start when editors fight over the inclusion of commentary, controversies and reactions that are beyond the facts of the event. And most of the time, those commentary, controversies, or reactions have no long-term bearing on the topic, or at least cannot be read until enough time has past. Any reasonable admin I would trust to recognize that difference in evaluating an article where there has been edit warring / etc. to which I would think we should have a means to enforce a restriction that no editors should add/remove/change information related to that related facet for a week or so without gaining consensus approval and/or, should it involve a factual update, admin approval. This should be a means if no other methods have worked to prevent edit warring, or it becomes clear that the article needs that type of restriction from past problems. --Masem (t) 04:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• NOT quickly updating stories of ongoing events amounts to covering them incompletely, and having our article deliberately give an incomplete and outdated picture. One of WP's key features has been our very prompt coverage made possible by crowd-sourcing, The more controversial, the more editors need to look at the article -- andthey usually do DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • When the aspect of the event is controversial, it is important to watch the article(s) in question, but towards WP's purpose, trying to stay up to date on the controversy at the level of detail that media usually gives these is problematic for a host of factors related to external and internal biases. To the point, people want to rush to include the impression of the controversy as described by the court of public opinion, which generally is not good for long-term encyclopedic value, and persists any external biases into WP. That's why I think it's important to stress the different between the facts of a controversy (which we generally can include quickly) and the reactions to the controversy (which we should hold back and wait on). The drive to emphasize the latter is where behavior problems start. --Masem (t) 20:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The suggestion I forwarded in the OP is not to prohibit such edits, but to exempt them from 1RR and possibly 3RR, such that if the content being added are controversial enough to start an edit war, they're going to have to wait. Also, I wouldn't want to apply it to claims of fact, but only to analysis or reactions, as Masem was describing above. So I don't think it would leave articles incomplete at any point, even in the first few days. All the claims of fact and all the reactions and immediate analysis that's not partisan (the sort of stuff that would get kneejerk reverted) would be there. It would just be the "This proves Trump is a Russian agent!" or "This is why everybody hates liberals!" stuff that ends up being held out, and even then; only if those sorts of polarized reaction fade away after the first few media cycles. If they keep popping up, eventually the restricted period will end and editors will be adding them right in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that the main problem with error or bias is where it has always been, with unwatched or little watched articles. Articles on major new events with many people working on them is what WP does best. The way to deal with controversy is not to restrict editing, but to get more editors involved. If there is a occasional instance that is a problem, there are available things to do about it., without making a general rule of it. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

WP is fine on covering breaking events where the information is mostly objective: disasters, sporting events, etc. Where we need both better content and behavior management is when the event is controversial. While we still are good at documenting the controversy, we still have problems with editors (particularly established editors) rushing to include talking head commentary, and in many high profile topics that are well-watched, this creates the biases that end up causing behavioral problems due to a cascading series of both appropriate and inappropriate editing actions. Yes, it is very easy for non-watched pages to develop biases and there's ways of dealing with that without special sanctions, but its the high profile pages that the worst problems are at because of the implicit need to rush to include reactions to controversial events. We shouldn't be covering breaking events to that level of detail in the first place. --Masem (t) 13:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The way to deal with controversy is not to restrict editing, but to get more editors involved. I agree wholeheartedly. I also think the best way to get more editors into AmPol is to make it a vastly less toxic atmosphere, and am willing to entertain any idea that might help with that.

If there is a occasional instance that is a problem, there are available things to do about it. Again, I completely agree. I'm suggesting this as a possible page-level sanction admins could institute, not a blanket rule (though I'm open to that possibility, of course, as a blanket rule was how me and Masem first came into agreement on the utility of this). Like Masem pointed out: sporting events and natural disasters would never benefit from this sort of restriction the way politics would. Well, maybe pro wrestling might, given how often I see it brought up at ANI. But we both know that's not a real sport. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I just stumbled in

I can't remember how this came onto my watchlist but there are some interesting ideas here. EEng 01:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd be interested in any specific feedback you might have. Currently working on finding unintentional ramifications or loopholes. ~Awilley (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I admit: I was the one who pulled EEng in here. I keep secrets the way dead people keep cats: they eat me up inside until they finally break free. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Darn. I guess I'm not interesting enough to have someone as famous as EEng stalking my edits. ~Awilley (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If I believed for one second I was famous for my editing I'd run screaming from this site and never come back. lol ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense?

" you are not permitted to enforce the no personal comments sanction on other editors" - uh, you do realize that non-admins cannot "enforce" anything, right? What does this even mean? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Tripping up good faithed editors in order to get them blocked

Honestly, this part, and good chunks of the rest read like an almost intentional strategy to trip up good intentioned editors so that they can be dragged to WP:AE for bullshit reasons and then sanctioned because... otherwise there'd be no reason to do it. I mean, look, every editor that edits in a controversial area at some point is gonna get frustrated and say "gee, the atmosphere here sucks". But now, under these "gotcha" sanctions, that's grounds for a block.

This is frankly, idiotic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

the "example" you gave is explicitly not included in the proposal you cited, so I think calling the proposal idiotic for that reason is, well, ironic.

Regardless, if your only purpose here is to complain, then I don't see any benefit to it, and would politely ask you to find something else to do until such time as this is either put to an RfC or an admin using this guide oversteps and gives you something worth complaining about. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Making a comment about the editing atmosphere could quite reasonably be construed as making a comment about editor behavior overall. If you were to make a comment like this on an article talk page, would VM be in violation of this clause for saying the atmosphere tends to be dismissive? 138.115.204.195 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

By that logic, any discussion of the problems with AmPol (or indeed, any criticism of anything that happens on the WP back end) is a personal attack on all the editors involved. Sorry, but that's completely ridiculous logic.

And I think you should probably look up what "dismissive" means, because I quite clearly explained what the problem with VM's complaint was.

Finally: I think you should log into your account. If doing so prohibits you from editing pages other than your talk page... Well, there's a reason for that. If doing so would expose your username to other editors when you don't wish it to be known... Well, Too bad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look up gaslighting... Your comments were plainly dismissive, just as your comments about my identity are (btw: please stop the aspersions about my status as an IP editor... I'm sure you know where SPI is if you really feel I'm a sock). And yes... The hedging in the special sanction is what makes it so open to being broadened without limit. The proof is in the proverbial pudding: if you take a look at Awilley's defense of his implementation of this sanction, he makes it pretty clearly known it has been applied to people he feels may have violated the spirit of his interpretation of NPA (look at BullRangifer's talk page, or the evidence that was offered to Winkelvi), even though no case could be made that the violation occurred compared to a reasonable interpretation of the letter of the policy. That you responded to my scenario with "that's ridiculous, OMG" highlights the point perfectly. It IS ridiculous, and based on a reasonable extrapolation of how this sanction has been applied in the last 48 hours it IS a probable outcome. 138.115.204.195 (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not what gaslighting means, either. And again: It's not dismissive when you explain your reasons for rejecting something. I'm sorry if you don't understand that, but I can't really explain it any simpler. You're just going to have to ponder what I've said to puzzle it out.

Also, I would point out before you continue whining about "aspersions" that I'm well aware that you've already claimed that this whole exercise is some kind of sinister conspiracy. You even edit-warred over that highly inappropriate comment.

Finally, I responded to your "scenario" (that's not what "scenario" means, the word you're looking for is the one I used: "logic") by pointing out that it's ridiculous because it is ridiculous. I even explained why, using small words in a concise manner. There's no excuse for you to pretend I didn't, so please stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You do yourself a disservice by speaking in hyperbole ("Sinister Conspiracy"? Really? Did I say that anywhere, or did I point out that some of what you want (see recentism discussion above) is absolutely a modification of our core policies?) and couching your counter-arguments in a nonsensical interpretation of semantics. I won't even broach your comment about edit-warring. Take a step back and consider why you have such a hard time responding collegially and removing yourself emotionally here... I understand you have a personal investment in the product, but being able to separate yourself from the criticism your work is receiving is a hallmark of professionalism... even in the anonymity of an environment like WP. 138.115.204.195 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Take a step back and consider why you have such a hard time responding collegially and removing yourself emotionally here... I think more would be accomplished by you taking a step back and considering why you don't find my responses to be collegial, and why you think you know anything about my emotional state. I'll lend you a clue to help with that: This isn't "my work" at all. It's Awilley's work, and Awilley and I have no appreciable history off this page.

In any case, I can only explain things so much. I tried to give you easy-to-understand answers and to be very clear about what was wrong with your argument here. If you can't follow that, I'm sorry but that's pretty much all I can do. I'm sorry that I was unable to help you further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi IP, why don't you log in? To answer the question: No. Making a statement that the atmosphere sucks would not be a violation and would not result in a trip to AE. Also if you read carefully you will notice that even if VM were to say on an article talk page, "This talk page is full of racist bigoted Trump supporters" that would also not automatically result in a trip to AE or a topic ban or block. What would trigger the topic ban is if VM made that statement and then, after being politely asked to retract it on his own talk page, refused to do so. So as long as VM is willing to correct their own slip-ups, there would be no additional sanctions or trips to WP:AE. ~Awilley (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have an account, sheesh... What is with you guys? And I hope you can see this is a distinction without a difference... What if VM makes a borderline comment, and an editor takes him straight to AE? Is the editor out of process, or would VM still face sanction? If the answer is "possibly either/both" then it doesn't matter that you have a recommendation for courtesy. 138.115.204.195 (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

What if VM makes a borderline comment, and an editor takes him straight to AE? It would get thrown out with a possible boomerang, unless it were the 20th time VM had done so in the past week or two, in which case it would (rightfully) result in the imposition of sanctions on VM. WP may have some bureaucracy, but it's not staffed by Vogons, nor by complete idiots. No admin worth their salt would impose an undeserved sanction just because some guidance page somewhere said they must do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for just noticing this, but it seems never to have been discussed in general. My own experience in this area is limited, to two terms in arbcom and occasional participation at AI, but I would judge that this sort of detail as almost never a good idea. On arbcom we have spent great effort in cases trying to find appropriate sanctions for the most difficult of cases, and a check of the "proposed decision" pages shows that neither in my time or before (or after) have we ever even considered anything approaching this, nor has I think something like these ever been even proposed by any arb. There's a reason: When sanctions are given in detail, they're too easy to game, and lead to endless arguments about just what violates them. Indeed, sometimes people have proposed narrow sanction on themselves of this nature, and they've never been accepted, because the consensus has been that they are usually being proposed with the very purpose of subsequently trying to quibble about them.

Even though this is in user space, and therefore not an actual statement of practice, they are worded in such a way as to make them seem as if they were.

I suggest at least that they be explicitly marked as a personal suggestionss for how things might be worded, so they won't be mistaken as authorities or precedents,. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: Thanks for the comment. Looking above it looks like you actually did chime in a couple times back in August 2018. I think I understand what you're saying about too much detail being bad. At the same time I think there's a valid counter-argument that clear boundaries with predictable consequences are in fact good. Do you disagree with that?

I don't know too much about the internal workings of ArbCom, but I do recall a couple of occasions where they passed sanctions similar to the "No Personal Comments" sanction I've got here. I remember being appreciative at the level of nuance coming out of such a bureaucratic body, but also disappointed in some of the details. For instance there was one civility sanction a few years ago that imposed a series of mandatory escalating blocks, specifying each individual block length. (!)

I am genuinely curious how you think these sanctions could be gamed, and how said gaming would be more disruptive than the alternatives (no sanctions or tougher sanctions like topic bans or blocks). Keep in mind that these sanctions are targeting very specific long-term but low-level disruptive behavior that frequently bubbles up into AN/I and WP:AE but rarely results in sanctions until a critical mass of annoyed users come together into a massive pile-on. I'm most interested in your reaction to the "No personal comments" sanction, since that is the one that is currently in effect against an active user. ~Awilley (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As a preliminary, my counterexample for clear boundaries in general (and it's not one of yours) is AP2. In addition to the difficulty of fixing the date, There were serious arguments made that everything dealing with any period in US history had current implications, and the current politics in UK has US implications, and some AP2 topic-banned editors who have commented onwiki, and some who have commented to me privately, that they are afraid of editing essentially anything dealing in any way with the US for fear someone will say it is part of US politics.

Part of the reason I take this as a serious problem is because of the general problem with AE--the extreme stickiness, and the very erratic standards of different admins. I do not like the entire use we make of the general remedy, and the only reason I do not advocate ending it is the lack of an alternative. This is of course a general problem, and not the fault of these proposals, but the more complicated the rule, the fuzzier the boundary.

more specific examples forthcoming, but I have a certain reluctance to explain how to cheat on possible restrictions. DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Page-level warnings

I applaud this effort to come up with creative sanctions that "fit the crime." My only concern is that some of these sanctions are rather unusual and might take editors by surprise. Are admins such as Awilley adding page-level warnings before applying them, you know, like in {{American politics AE}} or a similar template? I think it would make sense and arguably be fairer. Of course we have the standard DS page and editor warnings, but those are extremely broad, and experienced editors in particular are likely to be surprised if they're slapped with sanctions they've never heard of. Admins should avoid being accused of playing gotcha games. R2 (bleep) 16:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sanction shortcuts

FYI I have created all the shortcuts listed on your User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions page. — JFG ^talk 20:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I had hesitated before because I wasn't quite ready to have "official" WP-space redirects into userspace. ~Awilley (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Anti-fillibuster sanction

On your user talk page at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Awilley#Your_special_sanctions_on_SPECIFICO], you said "I'm going to depreciate the anti-fillibuster sanction because it is toocomplex" -- I agree with you completely, it is indeed too complex!. Were you talking about that one use of it , or in general? I'd like to think you meant in general, and that you therefore should remove it here. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

In general. I've removed it and the next step is to strike it out, so as to not break links. ~Awilley (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Auto-boomerang sanction

I think thisis unrealistic. A complaint that meets with "no action" does not necessarily mean that a complaint was unjustified, or constitutes any sort of harassment. It often means that though there is a problem, what is said in the discussion is sufficient, and that no specific action is required. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

please adjust it--the current statement is against arb com policy. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. ~Awilley (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Mini essay on sanctions and semi-warning

Introduction

For the last copule of years I've been trying to identify and address systemic problems at articles in the American Politics topic area. One of the problems I notice is that editors frequently divide themselves along partisan lines and engage in "civil POV pushing". An example when this becomes apparent to me when is when editors split down the middle on an RfC, AfD, vote, or noticeboard discussion whose outcome favors the narrative of one political party or another. Looking at a large sample of these discussions an observer will notice that certain groups of editors always end up on the same side. To give a concrete example with familiar names, you might notice editors like Atsme, Markbassett, Mr Ernie, Rusf10, and PackMecEng voting together 90% of the time when they participate in the same vote. You will also notice the same thing with editors like Volunteer Marek, MrX, Snooganssnoogans, BullRangifer, and SPECIFICO on the opposing side. Of course there are some exceptions to this (such as MrX at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_97#Jobs,_jobs,_jobs!). There is also a third group of editors who don't follow a partisan-related pattern, and who consistently take positions based on things other than politics, like Wikipedia policy. Examples of editors like this are MelanieN and Mandruss. (These are interesting examples themselves since they have very different approaches...MelanieN is fair-minded and collaborative, while Mandruss seems to adhere to a rigid set of principles.) Of course this is a generalization, and it's more of a spectrum than 3 distinct groups, but you get the idea.

Note that all 3 groups of editors cite Wikipedia policies to support their arguments, but for groups 1 and 2 the policies seem to be chosen based on the how well they support the arguments the editors want to make, instead of vice versa (choosing the argument that is best supported by policy). For example, when voting to include a certain piece of information, one side might say "This is WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM" while the other side argues "This is widely reported in WP:Reliable Sources and definitely a WP:Notable aspect of the subject." But then later there will be a vote about another piece of information about another subject and the editors will swap sides and arguments. (An older example of this might be how editors approached covering the racial tweets of Donald Trump vs. Sarah Jeong.) Fortunately the outcomes of discussions are often determined based on the "swing" votes of the non-partisan crowd, but I sometimes wonder if things would be easier without the loud partisan voices on the outer edges of the spectrum.

I actually think it is healthy for a project like Wikipedia to have participants with vastly different opinions and political leanings. That's what keeps us honest. If one "side" were suddenly removed from the process the articles would suffer. Editors with extreme viewpoints can recognize and point out problems with wordings that more neutral editors would otherwise miss. BUT, in my opinion, in order to truly be net-positives, these editors also need to learn how to put the good of the encyclopedia ahead of their own viewpoints. This is tricky. I don't doubt that POV pushers honestly believe they're improving the enclyclopedia by making the encyclopedia reflect their "correct" views. (See WP:MPOV.) But it takes a high level of self-awareness for an editor to say,

"I realize that I have strong views about this subject, therefore I won't trust myself to always be able to recognize what is the Neutral Point of View. Therefore, for the good of the Encyclopedia, I will do my best to set my own personal viewpoints aside and try to write from a neutral, dispassionate viewpoint and to advocate the POV of the highest quality sources I can find."

General thoughts about sanctions

Recently I've been thinking a lot about the sanctions we administrators impose. Often admins (including myself) impose page-level sanctions on articles that are particularly controversial. I think we do this because, unlike user-level sanctions, page sanctions are easy to apply. If I tried to apply a WP:1RR restriction to 50 individual editors it would start World War III. But I can apply the same sanction to those same editors by sanctioning the topic area they edit and nobody complains. The strength and the weakness of page-level sanctions are that they punish everybody equally. But (again in my opinion) all editors don't deserve to be punished equally based on the behavior of bad actors. This has been a big consideration as I look at what sanctions to place on contested pages. What sanction will best limit bad behavior from POV pushers while enabling article development from more neutral editors?

The problems with page-level sanctions have encouraged me to look more at user-level sanctions. With those, there are a few different things I look at. First I try to identify the root of the problem and find a sanction that directly addresses that. The wrong sanction can be worse than no administrative intervention at all. For instance, I think interaction bans are bad sanctions for addressing issues arising from content disputes. And topic bans are bad sanctions for issues related to civility. And blocks (IMO) should only be used to enforce brazen or repeated violations of bright-line rules. And even though the right sanction can be effective, I actually don't think user-level sanctions are the best solution for long-term change. I think that real change happens when a person recognizes that there is a problem and decides to solve it on their own. Because of this I've spent a lot of time on user talkpages (including some of those named above) trying to convince them that there's a problem. I've probably wasted a lot of time on that too in situations where it would have been better to just hit the "block" button and walk away.

Sometimes just the threat of sanctions can be the catalyst for change. I'll sometimes give editors a choice:

"Here's the problem I see with your behavior. I am prepared to sanction you with Sanction A or Sanction B, but I'm also open to your input. You can choose sanction A or B, or you can propose an acceptable Solution C. If you can convince me that you can solve the problem voluntarily with Solution C then we'll go with that and forego sanctions."

There is power in allowing people the freedom to choose, and people who have a choice are more likely to change their behavior than those who are simply acted on by an external force.

Another goal with user-level sanctions is not to punish disruptive users, but to help them become better editors and assets to the project. But I also recognize that we're all volunteers with limited time, so when I see users going about wasting the time of productive contributors I feel inclined to do something, even if it's to the detriment of the disruptive user. I have to balance what's best for the editor with what's best for the project as a whole.

Naming names

Here are a few editors in the American Politics topic area for whom I have been considering sanctions.

Editor	Problems I see (in addition to WP:TEND)	Possible solution(s)
Atsme	Seems to be reverting to the same behavior that resulted in the previous topic ban (abusing sources, bludgeoning, etc.) and renegged on commitments made during the appeal. For instance: "I will stay on point, present my case with civility while keeping brevity in mind, will answer questions if asked and will maintain my customary polite demeaner at all times. If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas."	Reinstate topic ban?
Markbassett	POV pushing, wikilawering, IDHT, bludgeoning, and maybe some CIR issues judging by the number of "WTF?"" reactions they inspire on talk pages. I previously tried to address the bludgeoning issue with a custom sanction but it failed. He either didn't understand the sanction or chose to ignore it completely."	topic ban?
Oldperson	POV pushing, NOTFORUM behavior	Newer editor, so getting a little slack; topic ban if they're not able to quickly learn to set POV aside
Snooganssnoogans	Has a nasty habit of inserting negative (sourced, but often UNDUE) information into the biographies of politicians. Sometimes uses reverts to enforce this.	Consensus-required like sanction for top-level BLPs: if an edit you make to a top-level BLP is reverted, you may not reinstate that edit without consensus on the talk page.
SPECIFICO	POV pushing, Wikilawering, Gaming. Previously tried to address this with custom sanctions, user initially vanished for several months, and now that the sanctions are expired the problem seems to be getting worse again.	Permanent sanctions? (Restore restriction on asking for sanctions on other users outside of official forums? Consensus-required? Topic ban?

Last year I surprised 4 users at the same time with discretionary sanctions. I got mixed feedback on that, so the above list is a warning of sorts to let people know what I'm considering and why. ~Awilley (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have the courage of your convictions, you should be willing to take your concerns to a consensus venue such as WP:AE. Your efforts in this area have been met with dissent, not just among those you sanctioned, and your "24-hour BRD" has not been widely adopted by other Admins who continue to apply the former "Consensus required" page sanction. I am not aware of other Admins having deployed any of your "special sanctions." Whatever your concerns, they should be taken to a broad venue. Start an arbcom case, or present evidence at AE. My advice. It's not clear who would even see this page outside a small group of your followers and supporters. That never leads to robust solutions. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you used to criticize me for not being more proactive as an admin...for not taking admin action that could have prevented the "time consuming and unnecessary" Austrian Economics arbitration case. [2] Now you're asking me to start an Arbitration case? ~Awilley (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your question, if you are looking for a reply. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Blanket (non specific) accusations are not helpful. Wagging a finger in a childs face and scolding them for misbehavior (which is what you are doing)is not remedial. You need to be specific, not generalized. So if I am POV pushing please give me an example. point me to the Diff's. Oldperson (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, you are not a child and are capable of reading WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TEND and inspecting your own behavior. Instead of dredging up a bunch of old diffs, how about if I just give you a link to an old version of an article talk page and provide you with some quotes that you can find via "Ctrl+F".

• "William Barr's summary letter was debunked the moment the heavily redacted Mueller Report came out and even that report, heavily redacted as it was, was a whitewash attempt. The Barr summary absolved Trump of absolutely nothing because it is false and misleading...Wm Barr perpetuated a fraud, to taint the Mueller report before it's release and apparently considering responses like yours (and you are not alone),it was successful at least in cult of Trump circles."
• "my taxes went up because of Trump, I lost my interest deduction on my mortgage for one thing..just so he, his family, friends and financial base could save a few million dollars(as if they don't have enough already..greed has no limits). He makes much about the job numbers, but he and the so called "liberal" media totally ignore that the jobs being created are low paying service workers(15 an hour or less and $15 an hour is not enough to live on these days(rent, food, clothing,transportation,utilities). I fail to understand the mentality of people who vote for and bend over backwards to support and conman and grifter who does not have any interest at heart except his own."
• "It is about time to add a section to the article about the threatened or imminent civil war For instance this article from Mother Jones as I googled Civil War oath keepers I came up with oathkeepers.org who blame everything on those "nasty liberals" who spurn fascism (i.e. antifa)...You can't have an article about Trump without mentioning his threats and alleged crimes. He has threatened to use his cops, military and bikers in a civil war, and they (like the Oath Keepers) have taken him up on it."
• Also this section

Article talk pages are there to as a tool editors can use to help improve articles. It's not a forum for soapboxing. Also it's not helpful that you overreact every time somebody tries to check you. Two examples from today: [3] [4] ~Awilley (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

So to prove your point you dig up some old (in wiki time) edit, as an example. Yes I was frustrated at that time with obvious POV pushers, so I put myself out there, no subterfuge. But your other ref's are from my Talk Page. I thought my User: Talk page was my sacred spot, not someplace an admin or editor can go fishing for "evidence". As regards those other editors trying to "check" me,one has me baffled, evidently upset by an ill thought edit which I immediately self reverted, but apparently his ego was wounded. The other has their own agenda and issues, which they dragged onto my talk page. One in particular apparently is quite put out that I didn't bend a knee to their superiority. I guess I should eat humble pie and bend a knee to them and you. There are editors and admins I have learned to respect,harsh they may be at the time, then there are those whose behavior is childish, churlish, immature and profane and I cannot respect them, so they go on a revenge bender.Truth is my time left is too short, and the issues and articles are too trivial, none of them affect my quality of life, as they are the opinions of faceless user names. So I'll just shut up and go away. Except perhaps where I can be of help to others. I once had respect for you.Oldperson (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree for the most part with what others are saying about your iron rule, and what I see as POV creep. Your behavior is profoundly concerning as are your groundless accusations against me which are patently false. Nothing I have done could be considered overzealous, bludgeoning or uncivil - especially compared to the real bludgeoning that goes on - and I certainly have not abused sources. Two highly respected admins, DGG and Masem have echoed much of what I've been saying about sources at RSN, including adherence to RECENTISM. There is no gag order against me except for what you have imposed - at your sole discretion - and what you have used to silence me by imposing unilateral actions based on your own misinformation and preconceived notions. My AP2 appeal was granted - you were one of few who was reluctant to grant it, and you bludgeoned me over it, and have hounded me relentlessly. You are trying to chase me away from AP2 for no valid reason. You are not only editing and controlling RfCs in that topic area, you are attempting to control the editors with threats if they don't conform to your homemade sanctions and interpretations that go beyond your authority at AE. You were previously warned about "being too involved" but it hasn't stopped you because here you are, attempting to stifle diversity and the freedom editors need to collaborate and discuss issues in order to reach consensus. In fact, when I don't respond to questions asked of me, editors have been known to demand an answer. You may not like my answers, Awilley, but that does not give you the authority to WP:HOUND me and then cast aspersions based on your own POV which is basically setting me up for WP:POVRAILROAD. Perhaps it would be wise to open a case at ARCA or ArbCom. You have created far more problems/disruption than your do-it-yourself sanctions have resolved in an area we all know is riddled with controversy and requires far more civil discussion than would a knitting article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, if I actually wanted you gone from the topic area you'd be topic banned already. Your lapses at ANTIFA were enough to justify reinstating the full topic ban. The reason I spent so much time with you on the appeal is I wanted you to change your behavior. You're generally a very nice person and I think you have a lot to contribute. On misusing sources, an example that comes to mind were your comments in this section beginning with your OR statement that "...a theory was put forth that Trump had conspired with Russia. As far as I know, a theory is a theory, and conspiring with Russia makes it a conspiracy so it would be accurate to summarize the Russian collusion allegation as a debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy theory" and then your apparent insistence on only using sources to summarize the report that predate the report's actual release. Anyway I can tell that you're trying, and I remember seeing you somewhere encouraging people to write in a neutral dispassionate tone (can't find the discussion at the moment). I think you know what needs to change. ~Awilley (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the time respond to your pompous retort or to file a case against you right now because my focus is on the Boston WikiConference which is next week. I hope you take some time away from AP2 to carefully review your aspersions against me. You will not find any diffs that will support your false allegations. You also need to carefully consider your misinterpretation of WP:GASLIGHTING and underhanded attempt to cover it up with a redirect to Gaslighting. Pay very close attention to how you responded to me when I asked for your help, and even closer attention to what others have been saying about your involvement in AP2 where you have been editing content, offering content advice, directing RfCs and acting as the sole overlord where your actions are stifling diversity and the free exchange of thought and opposing views during civil collaboration. It is profoundly concerning. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• MONGO make comments. I have the good fortune to not be in the list...at least currently that is. One must walk away from time to time...go forth to one of the other 5 million articles, participate in peer review, featured picture review, featured article candidates, etc. Those areas need a lot of help. I found an article I am reviewing at FAC now, off and on...a topic that has zero to do with politics (mostly) and is as far removed from this topic as can be expected. Its a refreshing experience. All of you listed have others things that must interest you...if not, find RS's and write about them. Now, I hardly would say mine is the example to follow, but getting entrench does little except get your blood pressure up and cause our articles to suffer.--MONGO (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Awilley - I will presume you pinged me for input. Yes, I really did not understand the custom sanction and it did not seem really functional - IIRC it worked by raw count of TALK edits so against my mobi use it counted my doing corrections to mobi spell errors or a 10 byte rewording myself for clarity the same as if it were 1000 words on entirely different topics, and my responding to those asking me questions also seemed objected to. That someone asks me if I really meant X and I say yes it did not seem like it should be regarded as a WP:BLUDGEON. It also was greatly puzzling because the remedy prescribed said I could do no more than - a bit more than I had done??? The whole thing seemed both manually onerous and not particularly focused to some useful purpose. It does seem to me more desirable to thrash things out in TALK and then put up an edit rather than edit wars on the article page, and seems that in this area likely ANYthing has a good chance to be contentious so best to let TALK run amok. When a topic happens, a lot of TALK happens rapidly seems just typical in this area. Eh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

False balance

This is an egregious example of false balance. An editor such as myself with an interest in fringe rhetoric and conspiracy theories in American politics (whether it concerns politicians on the left or right) should now be punished for adding such content, which is ALWAYS reliably sourced, and which is ALWAYS resolved through talk page discussions, RfCs (which usually end in favor of my position) and restorations by others, just because you personally disagree with that kind of content (ignoring of course that the talk page discussions and RfCs usually end in my favor) and because some of the other problematic editors tend to oppose my edits (and thus I need to be banned for the sake of false balance). There's no editor in American politics who has cited more peer-reviewed research in edits and who has resolved more American politics editing disputes through RfCs than me, yet because of a crazy desire to engage in false balance, I'm now going to be punished? The sanction that you propose would effectively make it impossible to cover fringe rhetoric and conspiracy theories because it ALWAYS gets reverted - it would also make it impossible for me to patrol pages (which is what most of my edits are these days), making countless poorly patrolled pages ripe for vandalism and white-washing. Also, none of the unprincipled behaviors that you ascribe to the two "groups" of editors applies to me - you would not at all be able to find some unprincipled flip-flopping on applications of Wikipedia policy depending on whether the subject is left or right, fringe or centrist, or whatever I'm group I'm supposed to work for - yet I'm still lumped in there. For all these other editors, you cite a long string of violations of Wiki policy, yet I'm going to be banned because you personally find the topics that I add on to be UNDUE? In the ONE example of an UNDUE item that you have cited against me, it was for a negative item added to the page of a moderate Democratic politician (John Delaney) (note that a frequent criticism against me is that I'm apparently supposed to be biased in favor of moderate Democratic politicians): this negative item was a death panel-level lie made in a national televised debate about health care reform, which was so stunningly false and brazen that it was covered by countless RS, and earned in-depth analysis by Kaiser Health News, the Washington Post fact-checker and PolitiFact. This item is still in the John Delaney article, and I'm 99% confident that any RfC on the subject would confirm that it is indeed WP:DUE, yet this is the ONE example cited against me of adding an UNDUE item (your personal opinion, which I'm 99% sure is a minority opinion of what's DUE and UNDUE). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Snoogans, first, thank you for keeping your arguments in the upper tiers of Graham's hierarchy. I also appreciate that you don't fit exactly into the mold of right vs. left, though I don't understand what you're referring to with who you're "supposed to work for". (I'm definitely not accusing you of working for anybody.)

Since it's the example at hand, let's talk for a minute about variations on the following formulation that you tend to add to biographies of living people: [5] [6] [7] [8]

PolitiFact rated [So-and-so's] assertion that [...] as "pants on fire" false.

Let's side-step the WP:UNDUE question and just talk about the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Is this the kind of language you expect to find in encyclopedia biographies? Can you provide a single example of, say, Encyclopedia Britannica rating somebody's false statement as "pants on fire"? That's the type of language you find in op-eds and news articles, not encyclopedias. That these kinds of statements often go untouched for long periods of time in low-profile BLPs is not a point in your favor. It's a problem. I'm not saying the content is wrong or incorrect. I'm saying that it is not NPOV and it's not the right tone for an encyclopedia. And if a particular false statement is really significant enough to be mentioned in a top-level BLP there are much better ways of doing it. If you still disagree with me on something so fundamental perhaps we can take the question to a noticeboard to see what the community thinks.

Re: The sanction that you propose would effectively make it impossible to cover fringe rhetoric and conspiracy theories because it ALWAYS gets reverted - it would also make it impossible for me to patrol pages (which is what most of my edits are these days), making countless poorly patrolled pages ripe for vandalism and white-washing. The sanction I proposed would do none of those things. It doesn't prevent you from reverting vandalism and white-washing. It doesn't prevent you from reverting reverts. It doesn't prevent you from covering fringe rhetoric and conspiracy theories. Read the sanction carefully. ~Awilley (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

• Awilley, It seems obvious to be from the discussions on this page that you are too involved in the various contentions on this issue to issue sanctions in the field of American Politics, in the sense used in AP2. This applies specifically with respect to the five editors you have listed in "Naming Names", above--which strikes me as a remarkably injudicious title, using a phrase that is normally associated with animus and open conflict in the field of politics--but it also applies to any other editor in this field. . I am not sure it is wise for you to be even announcing your possible intent to do so. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)