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)? --Neil N  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. --Neil N  talk to me 03:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ~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. --Neil N  talk to me 02:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * 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. --Neil N  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)
 * 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:
 * have violated the sanction (a minor problem as you pointed out),
 * 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
 * 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. 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. , 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. --M asem (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. --M asem (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. --M asem (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. --M asem (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. --M asem (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". --M asem (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. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 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)
 * 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. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 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. --M asem  (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? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 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. --M asem (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. --M asem (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. --M asem (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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

WP:INVOLVED

 * , 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)
 * - no comment on whether you are involved. Just commenting that based on the responses above, I think it's clear that this particular recent approach has failed. I think posting warnings on their talk pages would be more appropriate, at least, as this is relevant to those editors. Otherwise it would be better to go to WP:AE, where more can weigh in - because most editors would debate sanctions being placed on them.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with "slapping warnings" on user pages and it is this.Any auto-confirmed editor can slap a warning on a page. Revenge, spite, ego and just outright need to censor and shut an editor up are reasons. The system is rife with abuse and needs to be changed at least to confirmed admins only.Oldperson (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In my estimation, Awilley is not sufficiently invested in this topic area, nor has he shown a particular leaning (as far as I can tell), to not be able to adjudicate American Politics conduct issues. you are overthinking Awilley's innocuous section heading.- MrX 🖋 15:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm baffled by DGG's comment; I don't understand it. What on this page displays Awilley as involved in the AP area, in your opinion, DGG? And specifically with respect to the five listed editors, too? How? Why? Could you give examples? I don't see anything like that. I always thought Awilley very balanced and neutral. We have too few admins willing to stick their heads above the parapet and try to keep our AP pages decent, not too many. It seems a pity to try to discourage one of the few on such vague grounds. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC).


 * I don't think it's a matter of whether Awilley has any POV on article content. It's that he's too invested in his own judgment and has appropriated a role that very likely was not intended by Arbcom or the general DS regime on Wikipedia. By that I mean, he's forming personal, subjective judgments based on his necessarily limited personal observations about "chronic" behavioral patterns of individuals, and then using that personal opinion to apply home-brew sanctions.  I don't think anybody has any objection to an uninvolved Admin issuing a real-time sanction for acute misbehavior or egregious violations of DS over a limited period of time. In such a case, it's easy for the Admin to communicate the problem, the diffs, the basis of a reasonable evaluation that the community is unlikley to dispute.
 * MrX, your comments are thougthful, although we'd need to test them empirically to fully understand the processes you're illustrating. In your case, you've provided a clear description and logical basis for your conjecture, so we could in fact test it and learn from it. I suspect that if we identified a population of frequent AP editors to examine correlations among their views, I suspect we'd also find some factors omitted in your high-level view of things.
 * But this only strengthens the argument for having any such discussion on a community-wide page and with evidence cited per our usual standards.
 * Finally, just in my case, it's clear that Awilley does have some sort of personal animus toward me. I would not have raised this before his bizarre question to me above in which he cites an entirely unrelated post of mine from 6 years ago when I, a new editor caught up in a nasty situation that ultimately led to various other editors getting indeffed, politely declined a request of Awilley's. I feel stalked and creeped out by this, to be blunt.
 * As I said above, if Awilley or anyone else feels strongly about enforcement issues, I think they need to be brought to established WP venues with appropriate supporting documentation. Meanwhile, I think that, as a show of good faith, Awilley might consider a voluntary 3-month hiatus from acting in an Admin capacity on American Politics.  We have several other excellent Admins who've stepped in on AP over the past year and many others who we know are watching because they pop up from time to time.
 * I do hope we can wrap up this commmunity discussion of a general issue on this user page. I think that is everything I'll have to say here.
 * <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think what I said is  most clearly demonstrated by the table. To announce one is dubious about certain editors is appropriate. Having done so, one should leave it to others to carry the matter further.  It is easy to for an administrator  to work so much in a  field or with particular editors as to become inordinately suspicious; it can inadvertently have the same effect as one who is prejudiced about individuals or even is trying to influence content in an area. I mean this generally, not just here. (For example in my main field, I might be over-ready to think people have conflicts of interest; so if someone denies coi and I think them dishonest, I do not myself follow it up; if am right, others will.) I have never used admin powers in AP; if I did so, I would do it once or twice only; otherwise I would be at risk of trying to prove my initial actions correct. It is dangerous to think enforcement depends on oneself.  DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I understand you correctly by posing two statements that could be drawn from what you said: "The administrator who sees a problem should not be the person to remedy the problem with administrative action, but should present the problem to other administrators and ask them to fix it." or "The act of looking closely enough to observe low-level long-term problems like tendentious editing and civil POV pushing makes an administrator WP:INVOLVED." If your position is the first statement, I would disagree with you, since the primary function of Discretionary Sanctions is to give administrators the latitude to remedy problems using non-standard remedies like revert restrictions and topic bans without the requirement to go through a community consensus process. If your position is the second statement, I would say that you're making a good point by highlighting a real potential problem. I've expressed similar concerns myself. It is difficult to see some problems without spending a lot of time in a topic area, and it is difficult to spend a lot of time without becoming involved. I wouldn't say that it's impossible, but it is difficult. It's easier to just dole out judgement when the problems eventually bubble up to administrative noticeboards. But I often wonder whether the judgement of 5 admins based on 20 minutes of investigating a problem is inherently better than the judgement of 1 admin who has spent several hours investigating it. And is it really undesirable for an admin to have a deeper understanding of the problem they're trying to solve? ~Awilley (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Response
 * short answer:  I mean 2, not 1 (while noting  that 1 also applies in some cases, such as CSD, but not in the sort of matters being discussed here) .In both cases, some explanation or expansion is needed--see below.  DGG ( talk ) 10:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Long discussion (I apologize if this is rather long, for you raise a number of issues that deserve analysis, not just a quick response--and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so in this relatively quiet place before the possible more generally visible discussion that some above have asked for: )
 * First, generally, about the background. There are the rules I set for myself, which I recommend to others, and there are the minimum expectations for admins. Perhaps more than most admins, I try to stay very far away from anything that might conceivably be regarded as pushing the boundaries of my admin powers. Possibly more than some admins, I am very aware --more from my pre=WP life, than from WP-- of my fallibility. I had somewhat of a reputation in some parts of my previous career, of rather aggressive behavior beyond the norm for my profession. Sometimes it got things done that would not otherwise have been done; sometimes it hurt other people; certainly sometimes it hurt me. I came here determined to see if I had learned from my experience, taking advantage of a new start. My own rule, for example, is to try not to contribute more than twice to a discussion on any one point, unless I am asked a further direct question, and I almost always have adhered to it, on the principle that if I haven't convinced people by then, nothing further I say will do so. I advise others to do likewise, but I certainly don't think they're required to, and indeed I've sometimes been accussed of not being sufficiently persistent. I would never blame anyone for doing differnetly--unless, of course, it got them into trouble.
 * Again, as an admin, I block very little--mostly only persistent spammers, and some blatant blp violators and repeated copyvio violators. Many admins as active as I block much more, and in many areas of WP, they have a real need to. I don't expect my style to be universal, and I even think that it probably should not be universal--we need a variety of approaches.  That's in fact part of the reason I think people shouldn't concentrate on any one thing here--I seem to have accomplished as much in raising awareness of promotional  editing as necessary, for others are now doing this work the same way I do, and  i am trying to  return to my earlier admin role of undeleting potential articles especially on academics and related topics.  But I know other admins who have concentrated for many years on one particular role, and done it successfully and objectively--for example, the experts on copyvio and sockpuppettry.
 * avoiding over-involvement is difficult. The way of knowing you are over-involved, is when other disinterested people tell you--here or anywhere. When they do, it is in my opinion folly to say you are not--this sort of latent prejudice in favor of whatever you have been doing is by its very nature the sort of thing no person can be confident of avoiding by using their own judgment only. What one can do by oneself, is stay so far away from the boundaries that the question can never arise. In this respect, it is somewhat similar to harassment--a person's own view of whether they are doing that is not a reliable guide, but one can keep oneself away from any situation where anyone might think one might be.


 * As for the specific questions:


 * Awilley deserves thanks for all their work trying to develop a framework to rein in the passionate people who monopolize contentious topics. Perhaps the old approach ("it's just a content dispute—issue blocks when the number of bad words exceeds a threshold") will work, or perhaps it will train participants to use more subtle means to soapbox and insult each other. In one sense, who cares so long as it's civil? is justifiable since it means others don't need to think and don't need to do anything. However, that approach means contentious topics are off-limits to all but highly invested editors. The suggestion that Awilley is due to specific examples (now at  above) is incorrect. Working with examples is the only way effective procedures can be developed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ideas on what to do about civil POV pushing, tendentiousness, partisanship, etc.
@DGG, I realize you're still working on your reply above and I don't want to put too many burdens on your time. I appreciate your thoughtful and cautious approach to admin work. I'm curious if you have thought about the problem of the "civil POV pusher" -- someone who follows all the bright-line rules and politely but tendentiously wikilawers to push a non-neutral POV. Do you worry about the polarization in American politics creeping into Wikipedia? I read somewhere recently that like 80% of Republicans think the Democratic Party has been taken over by socialists, while 80% of Democrats think the Republican Party has been taken over by racists. When partisanship becomes so strong that it warps people's perceptions of reality itself I feel it's important for us, an online encyclopedia, to not surrender on core policies like NPOV. Yes, I realize trying to enforce NPOV directly is extremely tricky, which is why I'm asking if you have any ideas. No pressure to respond right away...it's also a question I've considered taking to the village pump. ~Awilley (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * quick answer: we will never have a fully satisfactory way of dealing with civil POV pusher, because the WP system of editing & of commenting is inherently susceptible and there's no clear line between what is acceptable insistence that a POV be represented and unacceptable insistence that it be over-represented. (more later, above)
 * just to answer the AP part: this year is special: almost all US WPedians (including myself) care very much more about politics than usual,  and many are deeply concerned the situation may lead to dictatorship in the US and destruction of the human habitat. The situation is made much harder because the great majority of WP editors are from a demographic that is likely to adopt one particular position. We can't solve it by just banning all United States editors from AP, because the concern about the possible results is world-wide. There is a point at which people think writing NPOV encyclopedias is less important than writing propaganda, and many here think we might be at that point.
 * It is hard to convince people that accurately describing the facts and state of opinion opinion in a neutral manner is the best propaganda (assuming that you think that your own view is the correct one--if you suspect it is not, then the best propaganda might well be POV writing to obscure the facts and the state of opinion). It is especially difficult to convince committed people that using loaded vocabulary, however appropriate to the actual situation in other contexts,  makes the article look like propaganda and destroys credibility. If I consider one of the candidates a demagogue, merely branding that person with the term is much less effective than showing the actions that might lead the reader using their own judgment to that conclusion.    DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: There is a point at which people think writing NPOV encyclopedias is less important than writing propaganda, and many here think we might be at that point. I'm not sure which people you allude to who consider propaganda more important than neutrality, but we certainly should steer them away from Wikipedia. Noting that my not being sure which faction you're alluding to is a testament to the neutrality of your phrasing… — JFG talk 00:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

continued here on WT:Arbitration Committee  DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Point of order. There is an objective reality. Chief engineer calls the bridge. Water is flooding into the engine room and the ship is sinking. Doctor tells the patient, you have lung cancer. Passerby knocks on door and hollers your house is on fire. Trump has over 13,000 documented lies since his inaugaration. Reaity is a bitch, but we don't censor with NPOV just because WP:IDLIT.Oldperson (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I know this was about user behavior. Not soapboxing about Trump. This whole episode started with an article about Trump, however mentioning his 13,000 lies was just an example. I could have used others, not about Trump. Point is that what can be construed as soap boxing is simply stating facts that exist in reality. I mentioned Trump in passing. I counted 20 mentions of Trump on this page until I stopped counting. You are quick to call soapboxing and forum, or maybe your targets are selective.Oldperson (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I've restored the original comment above and I'll place this all in a collapse box.