Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive 5

MONGO
Moved from project page
 * , is there consensus that Mongo be topic-banned from "everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people"? This seems to be a category mistake. The edits in question were posted in response to an AE issue; they were not content edits. Has Mongo caused a content problem in this area? SarahSV (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * replied to me on my talk page, but I think this should be discussed here, or this discussion should be reopened. He said: "Consensus is not necessary for an AE sanction. The topic ban was issued because the conduct that triggered it was related to the topic." Consensus isn't required when no discussion has taken place (i.e. admins can decide on sanctions without discussion), but once discussion has taken place, admins surely ought not simply to ignore it. SarahSV (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Read and follow: Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions. This is disruptive and out of process. - MrX 20:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Please read WP:CONSENSUS.  You may not like the fact this isn't running as you prefer, but the community is much stronger and much more relevant right now than it's ever been.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to join in the revert-fest, but I'd just point out that AC:DS says very clearly "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction", so I suspect this would be best, not deleted, but moved to the TP for discussion. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, consensus can change. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure it can. But just because it can, doesn't mean it has.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Brilliant input. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and back at ya buddy.
 * Also, whether the consensus has changed or not has nothing to do with the fact that posting this discussion under a closed WP:AE report is disruptive and WP:POINTy. If some "big names" weren't involved, we'd already have seen a round of blocks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, not at all. You're wrong.  But that won't stop you.  And don't call me "buddy", that's patronising bullshit that we can all live without.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly am I wrong about? A user pointed out that the discussion was disruptive and out of process. You replied with a non sequitur of "but CONSENSUS!". Another user pointed out that "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction". You replied with another non sequitur of "but CONSENSUS!". Then I point out that whether or not you have consensus (you actually don't) is actually irrelevant to whether or not the discussion is being held in the right place. And to that you reply with some sophomoric "you're wrong!". Oooookkkkkay. Have it your way. I'm wrong... about something. I guess.
 * And I tell you what, I won't call you "buddy" if you don't use lame ass sarcasm with me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I can you what, don't call me buddy again, you're not entitled. As for the rest of it, I'm disappointed but not surprised that some people here have now forgotten about how to communicate with regular individuals, instead they resort to lawyering and simply stifling any kind of debate.  You and your people will win, I have no hesitation in that, but you will gradually find it more and more difficult this year to continue down your current path.  Nothing you can't handle, I'm sure.  P.S. See below, the claim about who may make appeals was bullshit too.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "You and your people". Channeling Ross Perot, buddy?- MrX 21:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to say I have no idea what you're talking about. Don't call me buddy, go and improve an article if possible.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK buddy. Can I call you buddy after I improve an article?- MrX 21:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you can probably do better by being quiet and moving on. But you don't seem the type.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes it can, but let's stick with this for the time being, if only for the fact that no-one's able to discuss anything while the section is appearing and disappearing on the other page like a bloody cuckoo clock. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's perfectly fine to discuss/debate/rehash this on this talk page. Kudos to Black Kite for moving it here.- MrX 21:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah - pinging the people that SV pinged again, as I copied and pasted this section over; . Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You want to copy this over? User_talk:SlimVirgin I think I've been pinged about five times now for the same thread. --Neil N  talk to me 21:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I commented on the procedural issues raised here at User_talk:SlimVirgin. As explained there, in my view the place to discuss the merits of the sanction would be an appeal by MONGO, because the sanction cannot be overturned outside of such an appeal.  Sandstein   21:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't even realised that existed. Now you've linked it, it can probably stay there for people to read. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure this is the best place. SlimVirgin, you may want to take it to ARCA. That board is for several things, and explicitly includes the making of a "request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement sanction issued by an administrator, such as through discretionary sanctions)", my italics. This talkpage here is fairly obscure, and WP:AN, the other possibility, is unlikely to lead to an orderly discussion. I recommend ARCA. Note how that doesn't say anywhere that the user affected by arbitration enforcement needs to file the request themselves? Sandstein states above that "the sanction cannot be overturned outside of such an appeal [i. e. an appeal by MONGO]", in the tone of a person quoting a rule, but if that's a rule, I'm not aware of it. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC).
 * The rule is at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction".  Sandstein   21:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sandstein, sorry. I was just trying to add a bit more, but got an edit conflict. Yes, the DS thing says "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction", but a "request" needn't be phrased as an "appeal"; it can be for example a request for review of your action. MONGO has left, whether for good (I hope not), or not, and is clearly not up for making an appeal. I don't think that should prevent community, or arbcom, discussion. Let's not be too lawyerly here. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC).
 * " Yes, the DS thing says "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction", but a "request" needn't be phrased as an "appeal"; it can be for example a request for review of your action" - honest question; if that's true, what's the difference? Between a "request" and an "appeal"? Wouldn't a "request to review an action", for all practical intents and purposes, be equivalent to an appeal made on someone's behalf? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, while I can somewhat see where you're coming from, I don't think it was the intent of the Arbitration Committee to preclude all administrator peer review on AE sanctions if the sanctioned editor chooses not to appeal the sanctions, and I would be interested to seek clarification from ArbCom on that front if this isn't clear. If we want to be technical, it's my understanding that the whole section Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions is about an uninvolved administrator asking for a modification, not the sanctioned editor. Mz7 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, WP:AC/DS definitely allowed Sandstein to take this action unilaterally, and based on the comments of those who are more experienced in this area than me, it does seem no editor can bring an appeal (request for modification, whatever you call it) except for the sanctioned editor themselves. I haven't really read into the particulars of this specific case, but this issue is interesting to me from an procedural standpoint because it seems that what we have is a situation where one person has made a decision that no one else can even request review for, and there is something about that that strikes me as going against what ArbCom originally had in mind for discretionary sanctions. I guess if the sanctioned editor is unwilling to proceed, then we can't. Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a good reason to require appeals to at least be approved by sanctioned editors: they should control the timing of the appeal, when they feel ready to proceed. Allowing anyone to appeal takes this initiative away from them and robs their ability to guide the initial phases of the appeal (if someone makes a poor appeal, it can easily fail without the merits of the case being properly examined). As the editors who are most affected by the sanction, they should retain this right. isaacl (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This should not have been moved from the main page. In fact, the thread should have been re-opened. It can't ever be up to one admin to decide to close something against consensus. The result now is that we have discussions on multiple pages., this is not an appeal. This is an objection to your decision and the way you reached and enforced it. Please undo the topic ban, re-open the thread, and allow the discussion to continue. SarahSV (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "It can't ever be up to one admin to decide to close something against consensus. The result now is that we have discussions on multiple pages." - Sarah, that's how AE works. That's how it's worked for many years. Maybe right, maybe wrong, but it is what it is. It's sort of funny that some people are only realizing this now, that one of their friends got sanctioned. (Also I'm not so sure the report was closed against consensus).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Did you even bother to read WP:AC/DS?- MrX 22:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Who are you two? Seriously, do something else.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sarah, as one who is editing virtually only articles which are under Discretionary sanctions, I believe Volunteer Marek is correct here. Non involved admins are given very wide powers, Huldra (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * and, I know that Sandstein does it, but can you think of another example, one not involving Sandstein, where an admin simply ignored the views of uninvolved admins at AE? I'm not talking about imposing a sanction without a discussion. I mean one where discussion is taking place but is ignored. I understand about the wide powers, but I do not see them being used against consensus. If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate seeing examples (or just one will do). SarahSV (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It happens. But here I don't think it's accurate to say that "an admin simply ignored the views of uninvolved admins at AE". NeilN disagreed with a topic ban. BU_Rob13 agreed with a topic ban. Drmies was ambiguous. Vanamonde was ambiguous leaning agree with topic ban. So you have "ambiguity leaning topic ban", which then Sandstein implemented. It's not a strong consensus but enough to make the close legitimate. Like I said, this is how AE works - there's often some disagreement among admins on the best course of action then somebody says "well, I'll go ahead and close it as I see fit, thanks for the input". Sandstein himself (and whiskey knows I've had my disagreements) generally refers to the admin who imposed the original sanction which is more than you could say for a lot of admins at WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sarah, what I see from the discussion is no obvious consensus, in such a case the closing admin always makes a judgement call. In the IP area I have seen Sandstein block/ban people hard and fast on both sides. With him: you follow the rules....or suffer the consequences  Huldra (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on this (as well as the recent DHeyward thread, and the Volunteer Marek/Lambden thread, and Coffee's recent Discretionary Sanctions actions), I am starting to believe that having "discretionary sanctions" for American Politics is a net negative. Perhaps a full arbitration case is necessary to determine whether discretionary sanctions should be replaced with some other system. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Like Dave Mustaine said I want to see this "other system" before I sign up and why exactly is it better. Really, 90% of the problem is the "consensus required" provision. That's how almost ALL these problematic cycles of report/sanction/follow-up report/follow-up sanction start. Get rid of that and you've solved most of the problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful with that. Discretionary sanctions are very useful for minimizing the disruption caused by new editors and editors new to the area as well as giving experienced editors something to think about before clicking Publish. --Neil N  talk to me 22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of Chesterton's fence. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I doubt if this will fly, but the drama reduction thing at this point is for Sandstein to reopen the discussion and seek a consensus admin decision. I say this seeing that there appears to be a admin variation in the range of possible sanctions against MONGO. Personally, I think Sandstein took the clearer, if harsher, way but, perhaps, had they sought a consensus solution, the outcome would have been a lot better.--regentspark (comment) 22:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, this is how WP:AE works. It's how it's worked for years. Dozens if not hundreds of editors have been sanctioned or not sanctioned under this very process. The drama here is only because this time it happened to a MONGO.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know MONGO from a hole in a wall (sorry MONGO). What I did was look at the evidence presented and tried to craft a remedy that would address the behavior and editor history. I'd like to think I would use the same process for any case. --Neil N  talk to me 22:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that. But as you note, it won't happen.  We seem to be moving further and further away from discussion, towards a more autocratic "admin-rule" state these days.  Even daring to question the actions of these admins is (apparently) tantamount to a blockable offence.  "This is how it works"!  "for years"! Yes, and that's how all regimes maintain the status quo.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have to do your "autocratic admin rule" everywhere? *yawn* Keep your tangential stuff elsewhere, dude. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it has been happening for years then we aren't really "moving" anywhere, are we? We've always been there. The only difference is that this time it happened to someone with lots of Wiki friends (for better or worse, nothing wrong with having friend). Also your points would have more salience if you avoided the hyperbole (stuff about "regimes" etc.).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think everyone here would welcome a discussion about whether AE should be reformed, but I disagree that we are moving towards a more autocratic "admin-rule" state these days. I agree with Volunteer Marek that this drama wouldn't be happening if it were not about MONGO. His retirement (not his first), has brought out a lot of emotion and irrationality.- MrX 22:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You mis-read, you didn't even recognise your own words. Never mind.  Regime is just about right, far from hyperbole.  Don't patronise me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I was privately asked to comment here or somewhere. Anyway, I had Bishonen protect my talkpage to avoid any drama fest there, not that I expected after all these years that many would miss me, but in case that was the case I did not want anyone misunderstanding the reason I was topic banned or to assume that a grave injustice had occurred. I made some hasty comments (not my first as I do write passionately at times) that were highly insulting to a number of editors. I was wrong to make so many deep insults and I do need to remind myself that we all should try and pretend we are sitting in the same room together, maybe we have vastly divergent opinions, maybe we can find commonality, but we all and especially me need to be a whole lot nicer to each other. While I do not agree that the precise penalty that was applied was accurate (a civility parole site-wide would have made more sense, or even a block actually), but Sandstein seems to have modified his original thoughts to accommodate those that had chimed in and had called for a less draconian penalty than he had initially considered. Nevertheless, I had planned on sitting out from editing entirely until this 3 month topic ban expired, partly because I was worried I may inadvertently violate it and not be able to adequately explain my action or not have enough community trust to avoid a deeper sanction. I am also of the thinking that if the community felt I was not trustworthy enough to behave appropriately in one venue, then I would omit editing everywhere, at least for the time being, or indefinitely if need be. I will not have anymore to say on this matter for a day anyway as I do know there is a process for appeal but I dare not go that route if its going to be a dramafest or anger some editors needlessly.--MONGO 23:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not see that what Sandstein did was somehow wrong or against consensus--it seemed like a perfectly ordinary kind of discussion to me: various opinions are offered, various solutions and sanctions proposed ("Drmies was ambiguous" is correct), admin takes decision that is in line with direction of discussion. Where exactly that (this) discussion should take place is of little concern to me. I am more interested in what happens to MONGO, who I think has a good idea now of how his comments were perceived. What I wish is that MONGO wouldn't feel that way about the project (a way that I think is really untrue to begin with), but I don't know that I can help. When everyone is done here, please point MONGO in the right direction for an appeal, which in principle I will be happy to support. Drmies impressed, have deep feelings for MONGO. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have several comments. This is how AE has always worked: no admin has to get consensus for closing a request. This was deemed necessary because "discretionary sanctions" should allow admins, well, discretion. This talkpage discussion and ARCA request are only happening because of "wiki-friends". Recall the Eric Corbett drama, which also only became an issue because of the same reason. Incidentally, I opposed both of the sanctions. But if you want to complain, change how AE works, don't just do an end run around the process. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

 * The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Are we doing this?
This... thing where we edit war in all caps and issue blocks over whether or not it's okay to fixing a typo in someone's own comment after someone has hatted it? Is there anyone who honestly cares? G M G talk   21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * +1. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently, there are at least three editors who do. I left a polite note asking Coffee to let it go, but I'm not about to involve myself further. I agree with GMG. It's really not worth it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If Coffee doesn't unblock very soon, this is going to end up at ANI. When someone makes an edit one minute after a discussion is closed, reasonable people assume good faith that the post-close editor did not realize the discussion has been shut down. Lepricavark (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See this thread, where Coffee explains the block. FWIW, I saw it and immediately thought "Holy shit, what a bad block!" then when I looked into it, I was thinking more along the lines of "Okay, yeah, Anythingyouwant could use a short break." To be honest, I could use a short break, and I've made a grand total of three comments about this whole issue. I think everyone else involved could stand to set it aside to simmer for a while. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason given in the block log is: "Disruptive editing - you were told to not edit closed AE discussions, and you did it again anyways. Your disregard for our community standards is not going to be tolerated." It says nothing about his comments to Sandstein and Coffee, and makes clear the block was for editing the AE thread to re-insert corrections to his own post.  This is heading for a totally unnecessary ANI unless Coffee unblocks or someone else does and Coffee does not object.  EdChem (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that modified a closed discussion . He better watch out that Coffee doesn't come by and block him for that. EEng</b> 22:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Appeals and admins who placed original sanctions
Please see this, this, and this. Allowing sanctioning admins to decline the appeal of their own sanctions makes little sense to me. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is the idea of the appeal. The idea is that the arguments will be looked at by another administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:UNINVOLVED is what I've repeatedly told NeilN to read... but apparently WP:IDHT applies here. Acting as an administrator does not make me "involved"... I am not directly declining their unblock request, I am merely stating as an uninvolved administrator that this appeal is disruptive. And you better have a reason to be commenting here (as in this is an area you frequent) or this looks a lot like WP:HOUND to me. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 15:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Coffee, you are involved. You didn't just warn or have a polite discussion with Debresser. You blocked him and this appeal is an appeal of that block. Did you not read the first part of WP:INVOLVED? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:INVOLVED applies here. Admins shouldn't act on appeals of their own sanctions but they are permitted to comment on reviews of their actions. It's not like Coffee unilaterally decided the outcome of the appeal or made an admin action based on it, which still likely would not violate INVOLVED specifically but would probably be gross misconduct. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying Coffee is involved with Debresser for the purposes of potential future admin actions. But if I levy a sanction on an editor, I'm not an "uninvolved admin" if an appeal takes place. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I made the block per a consensus of administrators. I am in no way involved simply because I used my tools. Read the second paragraph, it helps explain that for you. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 15:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. You're also on the list of people I'm going to file a hounding complaint on soon if I keep having you two come into discussions that have nothing to do with you. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 15:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you please clarify: By "you two", who is the other one? Me?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you threatening me for commenting on a public page that I frequent? That is not proper admin behavior. Hounding you would be going to your contributions and following you across Wikipedia. Commenting on pages that you also commented on is not hounding and threatening someone with action is not the way any editor, let alone an admin should act. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal though they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist in reaching a determination. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you cherry-picking this? I'm not going to be closing the AE appeal, I'm merely leaving my accepted by policy opinion on what should happen to the appeal. Give me a god damn break for once people. I've been trying to handle a lot of shit today... that only the WMF and some OSs are aware of. Just let this ridiculous argument go. I'm allowed to comment in the section I commented in, period. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 15:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, but WMF have kicked it back to ArbCom now.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And most of that "shit" is self-inflicted. You are not an "uninvolved administrator" for that appeal, period. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You better retract that statement immediately, this "shit" was someone threatening to kill someone's child... and also hacking into my machine. You seriously are out of bounds with that remark, and you should feel ashamed of yourself for saying I caused someone to make threats of violence and break federal law (when all I was trying to do was protect one of our users). <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 15:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite. I was referring to your behavior on various noticeboards and user talk pages in the last few hours. And I'm aware of the other situation as I also received emails and dealt with them without the drama. Don't conflate the two matters. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Was your computer hacked? Did you have to personally contact the FBI? If not you better step down from that high-horse of yours. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 16:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fairly clear, even from Coffee's initial post, that he was referring to serious offline crap, and not the normally-heated discussions here and elsewhere. Would you please consider striking the "self-inflicted" comment in light of that? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done per your request, with reservations. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it boils down to what the instructions mean when they say "Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal". That isn't the crystal clear wording some think is is, in either direction. If Coffee had tried to close this unilaterally, it would be clearly inappropriate. But he didn't try to. If he tried to assess admin consensus about the appeal, that would be inappropriate too. But there is no reason to think he'll try to do that either. The question really is just about where he should comment, in the section labeled "to be edited only by uninvolved administrators" or in a separate section above that? I'm not sure that distinction is worth a giant argument. Reasonable people could differ on whether this counts as "adjudicating". I'm not sure this is covered by actual policy, so much as it is covered by common practice. While I think it works slightly better to comment in a separate section, and this is what I recall seeing most other admins do, I believe I've also seen it handled the other way. As long as it is clear somehow that he imposed the previous section, commenting where he did isn't that big a deal (though if he wants my advice, in his position I'd have commented in a separate section above that).

I have a feeling I do not have the skills to get everyone who is upset with everyone else to chill, but it would certainly be a good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * True, it depends on how we take that wording. "Adjudicate" means to make a formal decision, which his initial comment appeared to be. However, I'd claim that "adjudication" also applied to the process of coming to that determination, which is why Coffee should have been posting in his own section, rather than the section for uninvolved admins who were in the process of making the final decision. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * X5 Hmm..., is there much of a problem if you choose to move your comments to the section of involved editors or choose to prepend your comment with something of the sort of Comment by Sanctioning sysop? Won't it be a much productive use of everybody's time (including your's)? And, overall, this genuinely seems to be much ado over nothing. Winged Blades Godric 15:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's look at this from the perspective of the appealing editor. Having the admin/admins who just sanctioned you declare they are uninvolved with your sanction and are declining it seems a bit rich. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Bringing in WP:INVOLVED just complicates a simple point. Here's the point. A DS sanction is imposed at AE. DS are allowed to be appealed at AE. If the same people who commented on the original sanction, also decide on the appeal, then what's the point of an appeal?

Here's what you do to fix this: people who imposed the original sanction, comment in their own section. And other AE admins, comment in the admin section. Simple. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 16:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * x2 - Honestly I feel like I'm purposely being fucked with... but sure why not. At this point who gives a shit, I've put too much of my personal security on the line today for this site and yet I'm always treated like a shitbag. They've even (including the great and wondrously wise NeilN) accused me of causing an editor to threaten another editor so badly the FBI had to be called in, and then called in again when my PC began to be hacked. What the fuck do I try to help you all for when this is the type of commentary I get. I'm tired and all you people care about is some ridiculous formality that tries to make my opinion not matter. Whatever folks, I'm just wasting my time trying to defend myself when so many people have their pitchforks in hand before even knowing the facts. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 16:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, admin that opined in the original case shouldn't opine in the appeal except above the result line. I don't really care what policy says or not, this is common sense.  The appeal should be handled by admin who had NOTHING to do with the original case.  If you want to make sure that the process appears to be 100% transparent, that is how you do it.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sarek moved Coffee's comments to a separate section and Coffee then edited in that section without saying a thing about the move or trying to reverse it. Since all this boils down to whether or not Coffee commented in the proper section, I think it's time to leave them the fuck alone. I've had my own complaints about some of Coffee's administrative actions, but I've also seen a lot of shit getting thrown at them over relatively uncontroversial stuff. Maybe they built a reputation through their own behavior as a rash and impulsive admin, and that's why. I don't know because I haven't looked into that. But I do know that getting apoplectic every fucking time they do something that someone disagrees with and coming after them with both barrels is really fucking unhelpful. Especially when there's at least one other editor willing to back them up. Just give it a fucking rest, okay? Please, I'm begging you guys. If Coffee is really that bad, ArbCom is the way to go. Otherwise, just lay off the fucking drama and try discussing things with them without berating the living shit out of them.
 * And, I know you're frustrated, but it would really help if you could shrugs some more of this shit off. It takes two sides to escalate this kind of drama, and if you just ignore it, it doesn't turn into the one of the frequent shitstorms you've been dealing with lately. I know that's difficult (and often impossible, and often even impractical) to do, but a step or two in that direction would help. Sorry if I pissed anyone off, it's just getting old seeing a constant parade of arguments on my watchlist, with nothing ever being resolved, and parties only getting more and more on edge as time goes on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If there agreement that the actioning admin whose action is being called into question should be considered that they are not "uninvolved" for purposes of where to place their comment in an AE appeal, that probably should be placed into some documentable language somewhere to avoid the same problem. I read UNINVOLVED the same way Coffee seems to be, and there's nothing in the standard case instructions that suggests that those commenting below the line are "deciding" the case, only offering comment as those not involved with the dispute in question. I agree fully that the actioning admin shouldn't be deciding on the appeal but obviously should be free to put in their comments as an uninvolved admin per UNINVOLVED. But if we're now saying that those below the line are both uninvolved and are collaborating on a decision by default, then the instructions need to spell that out so future cases like this don't happen. --M asem (t) 16:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My view is that sanctioning admins may comment on appeals, but should do so in the section reserved for their statement and not in the section for uninvolved admins, so as not to appear to adjudicate their own sanction.  Sandstein   16:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, and would simply add that it is best judgement that any admin that commented below the "results" line only comment above it in the appeal, allowing for completely different admin to hear the appeal. This isn't about policy, this is about creating an environment that appears (and hopefully is) the most objective.  If you comment on an AE case but don't sanction, I may have to consider your comments in the appeal.  It is best if I do that with other admin who didn't participate at all.  Again, I don't care what policy says, this is about removing any question of objectivity in the process, and an issue of best practices.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the formal way to handle it. It removes the original sanctioning admin from being included in the "consensus of uninvolved admins" required to change.  That's the real requirement.  In other forums, that distinction isn't as formal as AE and the closing editor must determine who's "involved" for the purposes of consensus.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about the request concerning The Rambling Man
For the record, this was a solid report. Maybe Sarek shouldn't have been the one to do it, but it was a solid report. Feel free to remove this comment or hide it inside the hat or lecture me for posting out of process or whatever, but this was a solid report. Hopefully (pretty sure that's not the right word?) the WiR editors who were targets of this are so used to being belittled and having their motivations questioned and mocked, and are so used to a lack of support from admins that they will let it roll off their backs. But a big "shame on you" to people who think this was fine and should be rolled up into a ball to avoid drama. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've explained it all at at least two venues where Sarek is now forum shopping. Shame on anyone who thinks I was trying to belittle WiR when all I was doing was trying to encourage them and get them to overlook issues previously experienced at DYK.  Foul.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is an untruth. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. And actually, after you've told me "fuck you", and called me an "asshole", I'm surprised to see you attempting to take any kind of moral high ground.  You shouldn't be an admin either, but that's another story.  I'll rack this "untruth" bollocks up though.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(I've moved the above from the requests page, which is not for threaded discussion / drama / whatever this is.  Sandstein   22:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC))


 * Floquenbeam, for obvious reasons I'm no great buddy of TRM but this was as obviously a bad-faith report as one could get, and I don't believe you can seriously believe it was motivated by anything other than personal dislike. There's no reasonable way one could interpret TRM's comments at WIR as "insulting the motivations of the editors" as opposed to "disappointed that they're not interested in DYK". &#8209; Iridescent 22:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it was just an opportunity to promote women in general. I understand if you're no longer interested in that. Tell me, Iridescent, where is DYK in that comment? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, was I supposed to add DYK in every sentence? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Iri, you're usually right, but that is exactly what he was doing. This was clearly (in both edits) mocking other users' motivations. Re-read them. Sarek probably shouldn't have been the one to do it.  Obviously I shouldn't.  And I know TRM is productive enough that others are willing to allow him the occasional mocking of other people's good faith attempts to be helpful (just not helpful enough for TRM's taste).   But this is exactly what ArbCom was trying to prevent.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's bollocks. I don't even advocate for DYK yet I thought it was great to get eight hooks for IWD.  I chanced my arm at the WiR project, and got soundly rejected, and I said it was a letdown for Wikipedia that the process put them off so much.   If you want me indef'ed for this, brilliant, well played, but it's nonsense.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just read them. You appear to be working off a completely different definition of 'mocking' than I understand. Which usually includes some attempt to make fun of someone. "I'm disappointed you do not want to take this opportunity" could be *pointy* but its not mocking in any sense. And judging by the replies there, seems quite accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just read them. You appear to be working off a completely different definition of 'mocking' than I understand. Which usually includes some attempt to make fun of someone. "I'm disappointed you do not want to take this opportunity" could be *pointy* but its not mocking in any sense. And judging by the replies there, seems quite accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This was silly, and likely done out of frustration. If it wasn't done out of frustration, if should have been apparent that it would look like it was done out of frustration, and should have been done by someone else. It's easy to suspect that no one else did so because no one else was frustrated. Comments that are civil or uncivil depending on the interpretation of the meaning of "that" is not what got TRM sanctioned to begin with, and not the type of thing the sanction was designed to avoid.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   22:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it is a great loophole for those involved admins to take a run at it again and again and again, isn't it? Truly pathetic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that comments like this are warranted, and if someone opened a new request based on this comment I wouldn't have a problem with it.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   22:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a provision in the sanction that those that cattle-prod TRM should be blocked as well? If it isn't this sure should be. Agathoclea (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No there isn't, the sanction is one-way, and anyone is entitled to do or say anything they like about me without recourse. Including admins.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor of a revision stating "TRM shall learn the joys of being silently and laconically right, and knowing that most everyone knows it without needing to rub it in."  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   22:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with it. The initial sanction was stupidly phrased, this sanction is objectively worse and better (if possible), yet your suggestion is biblical and unhelpful.  I didn't rub anything in, just stated facts which will hopefully become true when we post eight hooks about women on 8 March, which was, after all, the whole point.  Never mind.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I've got no women to offer. I've got an unfinished article on a consummate badass if you're desperate.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   22:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "I've got no women to offer"? Wow.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Gee fizz man. That's almost at nit picky as arguing over the meaning of "that". I have no article on women that I've been working on recently to offer as a potential DYK if you are in dire need of hooks to fill up the available slots. I have another article, and one on a racial minority (who probably had the most racist funeral I've ever seen, but I have somehow resisted putting anything about it in the article so far). I'm from Appalachia. English will be my first language once I learn to speak it.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   22:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, frustrating when people decide on how to interpret every single character you write to suit their own version I suppose.  Thanks for the offer on DYK hooks, we're nearly there as it happens, so even though the two respondents at WiR weren't interested, we're probably going to be able to run eight women-based hooks regardless.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. Glad you were able to fill up the slots. Keep me in mind if you're ever desperate. I tend to take about three weeks on rewrites, well outside the DYK range, which is probably why you never see me there.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   22:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well we're not there yet but it's amazing what you can do in a couple of days. Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Community comment requested – ArbCom discretionary sanctions procedure modification
The Arbitration Committee is considering adopting the following change to the Committee's discretionary sanctions procedures:


 * In the section Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions, insert below the existing text: The editor must request review at AE or AN prior to appealing at ARCA.
 * In the section Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Important notes, in the second bullet point: While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, Once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.

The community is encouraged to provide any comments on the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Discussion about alert
Regarding the report against Js82, policy on awareness provides multiple requirements and any of them can qualify as evidence that the user was aware of the discretionary sanctions. Here, the second point, "They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)", was met because he had been sanctioned before under Indo/Pak AC/DS, I had mentioned "Sanctioned before in the area of conflict per above" in the form. The report was technically actionable on AE. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't stretch the limits now, you are equally at fault and any sanction on the other editor would've been applicable to you too, and now that you've brought it up, I think we'd have to look at that. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's totally incorrect and that's not what this discussion is all about. This is about if you are aware of the points mentioned at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, and you have said nothing about that. I am having this discussion so that we can avoid this from happening next time. If you or RegentsPark have any doubts, we can seek clarification at WP:ARCA. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * AS Js82 has been blocked on a different matter, I think it is time to move on. --<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

RE: Paul Siebert - Comment by A Quest for Knowledge
This RfE was closed while I was writing this comment, so I'm posting it here. I partially concur with SMcCandlish that the problem is the article itself. For the longest time, Mass killings under Communist regimes was locked (years, I believe). It was recently unlocked. With absolutely no judgement on the admin who unlocked it (unlocking it was a noble experiment), perhaps it's best to lock it again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can one of the admins who worked on this RfE at least please post a courtesy response to acknowledge that my comment was read? I just want to make sure that my comment wasn't missed. Thanks.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to request such a protection. You could try RFPP, or opening a discussion at ANI. Neither of those options is likely to be productive, however, because though the talk page has seen some unpleasantness, the article is remarkably free from disruption and edit warring. Vanamonde (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde93: Thanks for your comment. I'm not making a request for protection.  As I said, I was posting a comment to the RfE but it was closed before I could finish typing it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

500 word limit
It seems to me that there was strong consensus here to increase the 500 word limit (either to a 1000 or 500+250/additional evidence as suggested by User:SMcCandlish). Roughly I see about eight or nine editors supporting it and two objecting. Whatever happened to that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Who knows? I think the real problem is the disingenuous deletion of evidence and responses. The 500 limit is meant to apply to the initial presentation.  The one admin I've never noticed trying to enforce it as a total across all of one's comments seems to think people should no be allowed to defend themselves if they're already at/near the 500-word mark, and someone later makes accusations about them.  In some old AE case, I even had him delete the evidence I provided, then try to boomerang me for failure to provide evidence!  Pretty ridiculous.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to make discretionary sanctions actually work, by auto-delivering the required DS "awareness" notices
Please see: WP:Village pump (proposals) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Word and diff limit
I am planning to bring a case of long-term abuse of Wikipedia behavior standards under an WP:ARBAPDS. It will be impossible to show the pattern of behavior in 500 words and 20 diffs. While I can probably limit the words, it will require at least 100 diffs, probably more, to show that the pattern is long-term, pervasive, and unrelenting. In other words, there are not 20 smoking gun diffs, because the case doesn't involve edit warring or egregious personal attacks. I do plan to highlight a subset of the diffs that best exemplify the behavior.

Pinging recent AE admin regulars, , , , and. Would I be allowed to bring this type of case here, or do I have to take it to Arbcom? Many thanks. - MrX 🖋 13:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In theory, we can address any type of unacceptable conduct in areas covered by discretionary sanctions at AE. I'm generally not opposed to extensions to word limits as long as they're genuinely needed, rather than used for useless repetition and walls of text. That said, though, a complex and nuanced pattern of abuse might be better suited to ARCA or even a full case where it can be examined in more detail. Thre ArbCom can also craft appropriate sanctions as needed, whereas AE admins are constrained to the scope of discretionary sanctions. So if you bring it here, we'll certainly do the best we can with it, but it sounds like the type of thing that's ultimately had to be referred to ArbCom. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response Seraphimblade. I had not considered ARCA, but that may be good option in this case. - MrX 🖋 14:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seraphimblade. While word limits can be extended when needed, AE is designed for individual actions in relatively simple cases. It's not set up to handle complicated patterns of misconduct; you'd need an ArbCom case for that.  Sandstein   15:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One reason for the word limit is to force people to be clear in their complaint. If Seraphimblade trusts the judgment of some admin, they could send their evidence to them for review before filing it in public. The purpose would be to get suggestions to focus the material better. In terms of the pure word limit, I have seen people collect diffs in their own user space, usually with a provision that these personal evidence pages would be deleted when the complaint closes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not like that idea of "trusts the judgment of some admin, they could send their evidence to them for review before filing it in public" because that makes it not public until after being prescreened by someone that may later be rendering judgment. Not a good idea at all if I may say so.MONGO 16:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, how about leaving the bulky version of the evidence for that admin to look at on their user talk (by prior agreement). Then nothing is hidden, but the oversize version doesn't have to fill up AE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would hope that if an administrator were approached privately for review of a potential request, they would mention this if participating in deciding on the outcome of the subsequent request. Or indeed just consider themselves involved -- if they had offered advice -- and therefore not participate. MPS1992 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on these responses, it seems to be that the best course would be to take it to AE then, if admins believe it's too involved, it could be closed and taken to ARCA or Arbcom. There are actually 2-3 editors who, if they were topic banned from American politics, would improve the editing environment exponentially. (Actually, one of those editors would probably be site banned.) - MrX 🖋 17:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW if there's anything I can do to help lower the drama level, please ask. I've unwatchlisted most of the politician/overtly political articles because I'm so sick of it, and I'd like to feel like I could resume editing some of them again without feeling like I'm walking into a kindergarten again. So if I can help someone make a good AE or ArbCom case against one of the worst offenders, I'm 100% bout it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you have someone in mind for the title of "one of the worst offenders"? - MrX 🖋 17:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also have a mental list of 2 or 3 people that make the topic a very contentious place. I wonder if all our lists are the same. Natureium (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC) It appears that your worst offender was not one I was thinking of. Natureium (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, no. Just got the impression from your comments here that the party in question would end up being one of the worst offenders.
 * To be honest, I could probably make up a list of the worst offenders if asked, but that would just be fanning flames that should really be put out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Like, I'm not opposed to extending the word limits here but depending on the editors you're reporting, but you may want to consider a full Arbcom case (who might very well kick it back to us in the end, saying admins can handle it). It won't be a simple case like breaking article restrictions. If sanctions are imposed, the likely appeals will go to Arbcom anyways (with a side detour through WP:AN if the appellant is feeling particularly adventurous) and since the case isn't about straightforward article edits the committee will likely have to look at the evidence again to make sure sanctions were justified and not grossly disproportionate. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you NeilN. I appreciate your insight.- MrX 🖋 22:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A broader issue

 * The ARCA request has just been declined after an individual admin action, but I said something just before the close that relates to the advice given here, and I very much hope that the AE admins will give serious thought to it: . --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that I should reproduce it here instead of asking everyone to look at the diff. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * may be beginning to sound like a broken record at this point, but I could not possibly agree more with Tryp. I'd like to go ahead and repeat my own comments on the matter:


 * I'll just add that I wholly agree that the situation around AP2 is extremely systematic of factors both within and outside en.wiki, and I have tried to find ways to address them (focusing more on recognizing WP:NOT#NEWS remains policy, recentism is a valid guiding principle, and recognizing what the situation really is if you look past what RSes simply say). Those like Astme that even dare question the views of the mass media get nailed against the wall (though other editor issues are coupled against this). There needs to be a rather significant shift of views of how to use policy and guidelines properly to develop these articles so that they don't turn into constant battlegrounds, which we can do by avoiding the whole recentism issue and stay out of the bickering that happens in the media. --M asem  (t) 19:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly there are serious content issues around all of this. But for purposes of AE, I'm really concerned with conduct issues. It's not enough for admins looking at an area under DS to say that someone is just being heated in discussions and beyond that it's a content dispute. I think admins at AE really need to treat this as something where ArbCom has already decided that strong actions must be taken because nothing else has worked. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The conduct and content issues are unfortunately tied together. We can impose stricter and stricter conduct controls, but at some point the amount of admin attention to keep editors in line without addressing the content issues is going to be a losing proposition (I would already argue we're past that point). If we have to keep escalating actions on more and more editors, something else is very much wrong with this area. --M asem (t) 20:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (And to add, I am fully aware ArbCom/AE is conduct review, and not suited for content review, but this is a very unusual situation. --M asem (t) 20:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC))
 * Oh, I know you are aware of that. :) But it's not that complicated: editors disrupt these pages, you topic ban them. (For difficult content issues, the community can have RfCs, but those will just be shouting matches for now.) It's either a bunch of topic bans, or a new ArbCom case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Give admins wide berth to impose short corrective topic bans, and if editors don't change their approach, make the topic bans longer. Create a disincentive for disruption.- MrX 🖋 20:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Typically, topic bans are "indefinite" in length, but subject to appeal after six months. I'm pessimistic about disincentives; we need something more like disinfection. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They already have wide berth to do that. It seems to me that what they need is encouragement to use that wide berth more often. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, thanks. That's what DS are for: use them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish: Typically, topic bans are "indefinite" in length - I don't think that's true. I have seen a handful of admins who monitor articles and talk pages, and impose moderate sanctions, with escalation for repeat behavior. The same happens at AE on a fairly regular basis.- MrX 🖋 20:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. But I think what you are describing as escalating are blocks, not t-bans. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Masem: Not everyone interprets WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM in the same way, nor is there even consensus that keeping the encyclopedia up to date is a bad thing. There are valid arguments on both sides of that debate, but using that policy and that supplement as weapons to win disputes is bad for everyone. In my observation, NOTNEWS is almost always used to mean "don't use news stories as sources" or "wait until the news is no longer news", when that is simply not what the policy says. In fact, the argument is excessively used in American politics, while everyone turns a blind eye to it when there's a plane crash, terrorist incident, royal wedding, or a sporting event.


 * The source of much of the discord in American politics articles comes from people with strong ideological views who distort the rules to get their way, and people with strong views who resort to basic human behavior in disputes (personal attacks, incivility, bloviating, sarcasm, innuendo, defensiveness, harassment, and so on). In my opinion, the later should be dealt with more quickly and on sight, but with milder, but escalating, consequences (1 week topic ban, 2 week topic ban, 1 month topic ban, 3 month topic ban, etc). The more nuanced behavior as we saw at the ARCA case deserves a formal review and an opportunity for the the accused to defend themselves. I've been editing in this topic area for six years, and the basic issues are still the same, but probably more visible and active because of the current political environment.- MrX 🖋 20:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The more we talk about content issues or societal issues, the less that admins are going to do. At AE, it's not about content. My strong message is: bad conduct → topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be curious to know how you would handle the current Rusf10 case where content is deeply intertwined with conduct. - MrX 🖋 20:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For me, it's tl;dr, and how I would do it is really beside the point. If you mean that some cases are too difficult to settle on a sanction, then I'd say don't sanction on those, but there will be other editors, other cases, where sanctions will be indicated. As a general rule, when content is heavily involved, I'd say admins should look at what appears to be the consensus and whether the reported editor is working with consensus, or disrupting it. And if the issue has no consensus, then focus on conduct: it's not that hard to recognize incivility, fillibustering, IDHT, or a pattern of POV-pushing, regardless of the content. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes! You said a mouthful. Instead of using this flawed system of providing diffs with dates, we should require the reporting party to summarize the conduct, point the admins to the specific discussions or edit history, and let the (topic)banhammer swing. If the conduct is not obvious, then require that diffs be presented, or just dismiss the case. Another problem with the current AE system is that some admins are conflicted used about whether they can act independently, or have to wait for consensus to form. My understanding is that AE is supposed to lean toward the former. - MrX 🖋 23:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to drag this off point, the issue with NOT:NEWS/recentism is not that we can't be up-to-date (we should include relevant, incontestable, factual information when it timely to do so), but that there are a large segment of editors that want our articles to be up-to-date on the public discourse and opinion, which means we are immediately getting involved in a boatload of systematic biases from inside and outside WP. That is fueled by conduct issues - editors insisting information must be added and refuse to see beyond the now, leading to inflexibility in consensus-building discussions and the escalation of battleground mentality. The more we only keep up-to-date on facts and not opinions, the faster we can defuse the situation that's affecting conduct. That is something within Arbcom/AE's power to enforce if that's decide that way. --M asem (t) 21:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I've observed, recentism is one of the biggest problems when it comes to disagreements. Trying to keep a log of everything that happens in politics on a day-to-day basis is not the purpose of wikipedia. Maybe a ban on adding events that happened for even the first week after them would help to wait until we have solid information from reliable sources. A year would make the articles and disagreements infinitely better, but that's a big stretch of NOTNEWS. Natureium (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be the right way to do it, but I do not see that really happening. Heck it is almost impossible to get a day without name calling. PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's extremely rare that the content challenged on Am Politics-related pages on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS turns out to be inaccurate. Articles would suffer in quality by forcing editors to hold off on adding RS content, even for a few weeks - it becomes harder to find RS, editor memories start to fog and editor interest wanes (who wants to re-read and re-summarize something they read a month ago?). I think it's far more likely that enforced delays in adding content would increase the likelihood of incomplete, inaccurate and misleading content getting into Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See what I mean. PackMecEng (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again - adding factual, non-contentious information that clearly is in scope should be as reasonable soon as possible. Addition the reams of commentary and opinions that now exist in 24/7 news sources is not. Unfortunately the conduct issues stem from trying to rush to include the latter as content. That's the intertwined issue that is being ignored in these conduct disputes. --M asem (t) 02:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is the right direction. Factual, non-contentious info should not be an issue to add as it comes out. The area I could see some gray in is identifying commentary and opinions, I am not sure a surefire way to do that consistently. PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of additions of editorials being a huge problem on Am Politics pages or that anyone really adds "24/7 news sources" (do you mean cable news show material?). In the overwhelming majority of cases where WP:NOTNEWS is invoked it's for factual information by reliable news outlets (some of the editors who make frequent use of WP:NOTNEWS do however often claim that reporting by reliable news outlets is commentary). A recent example of WP:NOTNEWS being invoked was in advocating for exclusion of content related to the Trump adm family separation policy in the Donald Trump article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The RFC that launched the same day as the breaking news and closed saying it may be removed when we gain more historical perspective? Not sure that is the best example. PackMecEng (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I definitely understand where you're coming from but take a look at the latest request regarding Rusf10. We have admins recommending everything from boomerang sanctions for the reporter to sanctions against Rusf10. And admins acting unilaterally in these types of cases risk getting the same flak does - being called WP:INVOLVED and being asked/told to step away. Acting decisively is one thing; going out on a limb and getting it cut from behind you is another. Admin actions are reviewable and unlike Arbcom we have to provide evidence ("probation", cough, cough) to the community that our sanctions are not repeatedly significantly disproportionate or grossly disproportionate.
 * I also looked at WP:GMORFC. That RFC was about achieving consensus on content. The problems in the AP area stem from behavior (the content is ever-changing) and that's much harder to control. You cannot hold a RFC and one editor's "innocent" aside is another editor's blatant aspersion. One side's whitewashing/attack content is another side's attempt to follow NPOV. One editor's "just repeating common knowledge/views" is another editor's partisan advocacy. All this being said, I do think things in this area are coming to a head and that we'll see more topic bans of the regular editors if things continue the way they have. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, NeilN, those are thoughtful replies. My GMO point was not that anyone should hold another content RfC, but that admins are at liberty to do a wide variety of things when authorized by DS, and should feel empowered to do so. But getting to the present case, yes, it's a difficult situation when the AE admins cannot agree among themselves. Maybe it means there is a need for the admins to really talk it through until they reach a consensus. Or maybe it means that more than one editor needs to be restricted. As for acting unilaterally, I can easily understand how that can be scary, but I think it all comes down to, first, thinking it through carefully, and then being able to justify the action. There will be users in the peanut gallery making all kinds of criticisms, but that just comes with the territory. So, either there is safety in numbers, with admins agreeing, or there are admins who haven't looked closely enough and are missing the point, in which case it's reasonable to look closely and do what you think is the right thing. But I've gotta say, for some recent AE threads that I've been directly involved in and that were AP2-related, that kind of thing wasn't the problem. A lot of the problem was either a matter of just one admin looking and not looking closely enough, and then it got closed, or a couple of admins looking, largely agreeing, with one thinking about issuing a sanction, but then another admin comes along and closes it before the discussion is over. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I have now read the Rusf10 discussion, although I have not looked into it as deeply as I would have if I were a reviewing admin. For what it's worth, I agree with you, NeilN. I also think that there is one admin there who is very much on a different page than the other admins, and who is spectacularly wrong. Setting aside that one opinion, I think I do see an emerging consensus among the rest of the admins. And this is not the kind of blatant case that I am seeing with other editors in the topic area, so it's not representative of the kinds of situations where a t-ban is just crying out to be imposed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just about to post that AE is somewhat broken, as seen by the divergent discussion about Rusf10 which has boomerangs being aimed in every direction. I don't think this is what was envisioned when for AE. was created. Some sort of reform should be considered.- MrX 🖋 21:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that AE is broken, we've seen similar results in recent gun politics cases. The various talk page alerts and warnings imply that admins are standing by, ready to skip the formalities and hand out bans on sight, but instead the enforcement procedure leads to Bureaucracy Central where admins hem and haw over whether to sanction editors who have been given five or six last chances. –dlthewave ☎ 23:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That reminded me: another factor that AE admins should consider in difficult cases is whether or not there have been multiple previous last chances. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the solution is to limit the use of the sources i.e edits should be based only scholarly literature --Shrike (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What would you consider "scholarly literature"? PackMecEng (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the issues that likely raised this point was the debate of the use of a JAMA article (though it was a JAMA Opinion piece but certainly would be all means be called scholarly). And scholarly literature is far too narrow a segment for how much we've already included in WP, nor with the recentness that we generally want. It's a reasonable target, but not an absolute one. --M asem (t) 22:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that scholars, in particular historians (the field that produces the most useful content for Wiki purposes, i.e. detailed narratives), do not really cover contemporary topics at great length or in a way that would be of use to those of constructing Wikipedia articles. Scholars also heavily rely on the very same news sources that editors use when constructing Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

About AE being broken: when Rusf10's case was a stalemate, I knew exactly who admins would come and pile against an editor with a right-wing slant (although one admin whose nick starts with a 'J' is still missing). It's sad you can expect some cases go along political lines. And you should be ashamed for bringing stuff to AE that you could easily work out with the other editor if you didn't hate their guts for political reasons. The crazy part is that despite all this, AE still works a lot better than ANI where the bloodhounds will be calling for indefinite blocks and boomerangs for every possible case. --Pudeo (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One of many parts of the problem is the perception that the way that Wikipedia works is "against an editor with a right-wing slant" – or against one with a left-wing slant. If things were to work according to the theoretical ideal here, editors would certainly have various personal opinions, but would not edit with a "slant" in either direction. And there are some editors who try hard (subject to human limitations) to do just that. But it is remarkably easy to find editors active in AP2 now, who always edit in either a right-wing or a left-wing direction – I can think of some, who have a great many contributions, who if asked to show a single diff of an edit where they "edited for the opposition", would not be able to come up with a single such diff. And isn't that pretty much the definition of a POV pusher? And those editors who do edit in a POV way are the ones most likely to complain of a system that is biased against them (speaking there in general terms, not implying anything about the editor who made the comment above). I could almost go as far as to say that any editor who cannot provide those kinds of diffs should be topic-banned, and that this might be a useful factor to look at in AE cases. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Closely related to that, I see that some data about possible "slant" at AE are being compiled at User:James J. Lambden/sandbox. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, I think that list speaks volumes about bias here. It also show that Volunteer Marek is the most frequent participant at AE. Almost unbelievable that someone could be involved in 14 filings (in one way or another) over a one year period and never be sanctioned himself. Something is wrong.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is so hard to believe? There have been a lot of disruptive editors, SPAs, socks, POV pushers, and gamers. Somebody has to report them or the situation would never improve. Ironically, the Lamden/Lionelt list (and this one) is apparently being created to show how biased Wikipedia administrators are, when in fact it's just highlighting that the dark grays are misbehavin'. A lot. Somehow, banned editor SashiRolls figures into all this.- MrX 🖋 21:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Last I heard, SashiRolls is still off-wiki griping about big bad WP. The Lambden "study", in my mind, is an excellent example of a flawed study. One hopes it won’t be used in any attempt to fix AE. O3000 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Editors working with mainstream sources to write NPOV content have no reason or inclination to be disruptive or to violate DS. The wind is at their backs. On the contrary, it would be surprising if the bulk of the disruption were not from fringe, poorly-sourced, nothere, or POV editing. That's true in all subjects across the Project. It's true in real life as well. Why would it ever be otherwise? How could it be otherwise? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As it stands, I think that MrX’s eloquent, truly eloquent, recent filing is a large step forward. It was declined on procedural grounds, but had the correct effect, may have awakened admins, and will not be successfully challenged. I’m not convinced that the procedures are lacking. I simply think we must make more effective use of what already exists. Yes, there is obviously a problem. But, considering the enormous and increasing divisions in the American public, I’m not convinced WP has been damaged as badly as the political environment as a whole. Clearly, we need to deal with any infection from the extra-WP field. Toward that end, much as I dislike the drama boards, I think we need to make more use of such. MrX initiated an effort. Obviously, this can affect POV pushers from any and all. So be it. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Eloquent? Hardly. It is so creepy to think people are hoarding and stalking diffs over the course of several months and years to put together a case. I guarantee most of us active in that topic area could be sanctioned with cherry picked diffs taken out of context. What happened at ARCA was disgusting. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I could provide more diffs to dispute your characterization. But, that would be piling on and serve no purpose. Forward. O3000 (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to acknowledge that discussions on AP2 talk pages don't start toxic. They generally build in that direction. There'll be one slightly incendiary but perfectly legitimate comment, and then a slightly more incendiary but also legitimate comment, and so on, and eventually the discussion reaches a point that's so toxic everyone notices, but it's far too difficult to go back and determine where the line was. There is no line, after all, only a conglomeration of things we consider acceptable, a conglomeration of things we consider unacceptable, and a massive fuzzy area lying somewhere in the middle. I've encountered this problem while hatting discussions, and because I don't want to offend anyone or get into a hissy fit, as hatting someone's comment amounts to a reprimand, I usually just leave the whole thread. I can only imagine this is so much more difficult for administrators, who are dealing with far more consequential actions than a simple comment collapse and are under far more scrutiny than us users. It's very easy to say for us non-admins to say that the admins need to do a better job enforcing sanctions and start handing out DS freely. But how many of you are willing to go to Talk:Donald Trump, or some other busy, contentious talk page, right now, and give us a list of people you would sanction for comments that are visible right now? I'd be afraid to do that, both because I'd be afraid of suggesting a sanction that there wasn't support for and because I'd be afraid of reprisal, and I imagine many admins have similar feelings. Obviously, calling someone out is not the same as applying a ban—the ban carries more authority and is thus more likely to be deferred to—but the victim is going to make a ruckus if no one else, and given that most admins are under constant, considerable scrutiny, which is often a source of some significant amount of stress, I highly doubt that inviting a shitestorm by banning a sizable chunk of editors at AP2 is high on any admin's to-do list, and I doubt it would be on any of yours if you were admins. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then maybe it's a good thing that I am not an admin, because I would. I think there's a difference between losing one's cool once in the course of a building inferno, and repeatedly, again and again, setting the fire. I hope AE admins can tell the difference between a one-off versus repeated behavior. We have a choice here: keep allowing every discussion to deteriorate in the way described, with the resulting harm to Wikipedia, or take very seriously the fact that this is doing harm to Wikipedia and serious remedies are needed – and have already been authorized by ArbCom. A trivial one-off: let it go. A couple of significant blow-ups but not yet a chronic pattern: log a warning. A pattern: topic-ban. Just giving up is unacceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We do have (somewhat outdated) standards and principles which recommend an escalating series of sanctions. An immediate long-term ban might bring an admin under scrutiny, but a warning followed by a short ban followed by a longer ban would clearly show a pattern of behavior that is unlikely to change. I've seen issue a talk page warning along the lines of "do this again and I'll ban you", sometimes followed by a short block within the same day. This gives the editor an opportunity to discuss the issue in a less-formal setting than AE and potentially correct their behavior on their own. I'd like to see more admins follow this process, reserving AE for more serious long-term disruption.
 * As an aside, the standards and principles linked above show how far our practices have drifted. A block on the order of hours or days is a bit laughable for AE cases that often last a week or two. –dlthewave ☎ 17:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You know, I've never come across that page. Thanks for pointing it out. And yes, excepting particularly egregious or repeated cases, my standard practice is to warn about behavior and then sanction if the behavior continues. I will also sanction if the editor doesn't see their behavior as problematic (e.g., won't self-revert or insists other editors are vandals) to prevent future disruption. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

How to handle this?
There's been a recent dispute on AR-15 style rifle regarding who, if anyone, broke discretionary sanctions on that page. The content dispute/edit war itself is, as usual, immaterial, a tussle over a few small quotes, but there has been a somewhat inconclusive talk page section, two AN/I sections (1, 2) that were closed as wrong venue, and several user talk sections trying to determine who exactly violated DS. What's the best course of action here? It seems like AE isn't really built to handle cases where more than one editor could be at fault. I didn't realize this until I actually came here to make a request. For the record, there is really one obvious course of action - only one editor has reverted more than once, after all - but since I intend to stay as neutral as possible in this dispute, is reporting multiple people for possible (but mutually exclusive) offenses possible under the AE framework? ansh 666 08:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As the user who can be said to be responsible for this question I feel I should say something. In essence it boils down to the fact that "technically" multiple users have breached the DS (one also edit warred), but all can say they undid a violation. The exception was the first revert of a (technical, I suppose) revert (it undid material that was months old, which could easily be misunderstood to not count as a revert). So I cannot report just one user (in all good conscious) but am not sure any of the others breached the DS also (and thus need reporting). So how do I report all of them (should I report all of them?), without spamming the forum with three or four separate reports?Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll be succinct here as the AN/I has now been closed, and will avoid making any accusations here. It's difficult to file a case against any one editor because, from different perspectives, several people have, and have not, violated the DS. AE is really designed, as I understand it, to assess the actions of individual editors. This is an awkward situation. All I can suggest is that a willing admin, if any are willing, visit the article and article talk and then make an assessment that way. Might be easier to handle it that way, rather than to have multiple admins reading multiple statements against multiple people in multiple sections. That would be particularly unpleasant. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh this article is a prime example of why the bullshit 'consensus required' restriction is just a exercise to prevent improvement to articles. As a side effect of stifling any attempt to add or remove any substantial material, it also means that ultimately (unless they forget) no one gets sanctioned for edit-warring (because it doesnt get that far) but no actual consensus will appear because its a highly politicised topic. Anyone who doesnt have a strong POV who might be interested in making improvements cannot possibly, because 'consensus required' means they will be blocked at every point by entrenched POV-editors. Any actual deterrent to editing tendentiously on the entrench editors part has been removed because they can achieve the same result without edit warring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In my view, what happened is pretty clear. I reverted an edit that removed some quotes that had been in the article since March or earlier, well before it was protected (or whatever the right term is for imposing the 1rr and other restrictions).  At the time there was no consensus for or even discussion of removing those quotes.  Admittedly that revert had a terse edit summary, due to hitting enter by mistake while writing it.  My revert was reverted, to my mind a blatant violation of the rules (that an edit challenged by reversion cannot be reinstated without talk page consensus).  I asked the editor politely to self revert, but they refused.  So I reverted again, and was again reverted, then once more again.  In all three editors reinstated the challenged edit: Thomas.W, Mr rnddude, and Afootpluto.


 * Various editors provided rather, um, creative justifications, like that there was actually consensus on someone's talk page, or that the initial edit was actually a revert because, after all, the material that was removed was at some point added to the article.


 * I filed an ani report after the first sequence, but it was closed, I guess it should have been filed here. However I have very limited access to Wikipedia where I am now and it's essentially impossible for me to post diffs or any other even figure out where and how to file such reports.   Waleswatcher  ( talk )


 * Instead of WP:AE, have you considered trying Dispute resolution noticeboard? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as people are talking to each other instead of edit-warring, I think WP:DR is a better approach than WP:AE.  Sandstein   06:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They are making PA's and derailing the thread over user conduct. We are not talking with each other we are talking at each other. This is not an issue of content dispute but of disregard for DS, as well as general incivility and low level edit warring (and maybe gaming the system, and god know what else). Multiple accusations (some of which do have some merit) of breached of policy, yet no one will simply say "yes this was a violation, please stop".Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Slater here that this isn't a content dispute. The content itself is well under control. It's the edit-warring and conduct that is in dispute. There's general consensus that a reword or amendment should be made to clarify the question of: which AR-15? The answer there is obvious - ArmaLite AR-15. That just needs implementing, and without disruption could be handled in short order. The dispute here is: is a warning, block or other remedy necessary against one or more parties to prevent recurrent disruption in future disputes? - rest assured that there will be future disputes. I'd say blocks are off the table, for now, as the disruption seems to be over (thus no block is preventative), but a clarification or other remedy may (eventually will) be needed (it's just a matter of acting now or in the future). Otherwise this will happen again, as has happened several times before. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not just over this issue, but in essence some users seem to either do not get what the rules actually are (and it has been raised before) or are gaming the system. What I think is need is a warning that is in the nature of a clarification as to what is not allowed.
 * A. What talk pages are for.
 * B. What constitutes a revert (and if it counts as a revert if it undoes an old edit).
 * C. Does undoing a (perceived) violation count as a violation.
 * D. That edit warring can be over a greater period then 1RR over 24 hours.
 * E. That PA's are never valid, not matter ho right you think you are, nor just because they are directed at an ill defined group of editors rather then one person.
 * These are not content dispute issues, they are breached of guidelines (or at least users not understanding them).Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not over, and it is - at least partially - about the content. I disagree with the removal of those quotes for reasons I've detailed on various talk pages and edit summaries, and I fully intend to restore them (unless a clear consensus emerges against it). I'm very happy to collaborate to edit the text in some way to remove any possible ambiguity the quotes may introduce, that's perfectly ok. What's not ok is to leave things as they stand. Multiple editors plainly violated the DS, including Mr rnddude, and there should be some kind of clarity regarding that.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 09:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There's also the matter of the personal attacks directed at me, various assertions about my motives, threats, etc., by several editors. I'm not particularly sensitive to such things, I think it just shows the weakness of their position, but those probably violate the ds as well.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 09:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How about providing diffs for the personal attacks, threats etc that you claim have been directed at you? Just so that people here can judge for themselves if your claims are true or not. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot post diffs now, and won't be able to for a while (as I've explained several times). But it's not hard to find them, and you were one of the culprits.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 21:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I never make personal attacks, and I have never threatened anyone. No diffs = never happened, so I'm calling your bluff. Even if you for some (very convenient) reason (a reason that obviously doesn't stop you from reading and posting here) can't create diffs yourself you would have no problems finding them, and telling people which page they're on, when they were posted and by whom. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's actually very difficult to find anything given the limitations I have here. But as I recall you accused me of tendentious editing and gaming the system (which is accusing me of bad faith - WP:GAME is defined as bad faith editing - and could be considered a personal attack), you tried to intimidate me by asserting I'd be blocked if I reported you, you put a canned 3rr warning on my talk page, etc.  All this in response to me pointing out that you blatantly violated the remedies and asking you politely to self-revert.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 05:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a load of cr*p: pointing out, as several editors here have done, that what you're doing is tendentious editing and gaming the system (including re-adding POV material every 26h or so...), which is easy to prove, is not a personal attack, and quoting the rules here isn't a threat. And no, I did not violate anything for reverting your re-addition of POV and misleading material with what apparently is a false claim about "reverting to a consensus version", a claimed consensus that no one else has seen and you haven't managed to point to, in spite of being asked to do so by multiple other editors. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 08:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

WW has restored the material for a fourth time. The first time can be argued as done under the guise of "no consensus for removal", the other 3 are edit warring. So the question is does this go to the WP:3RR or WP:AE? Springee (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , it goes here. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Restored the material" is almost correct - I've restored the article to close to the state it was in before a new edit was made (by 72bikers), then challenged by reversion. Since there was no and never emerged any consensus for 72bikers' edit, any edits that reinstated it violated the DS.  Mr rnddude made one such edit; others were by Thomas.W and Afootpluto.


 * I say "close", because I added some comments (suggested by User:dlthewave on the talk page) in a good faith effort to address the original concern, Wich was that the quotes might be misinterpreted. Those comments can be reverted and the article returned to its original state if there is no consensus for them. (I also added a sentence about the assault weapons ban, which is needed but unrelated to this dispute.)


 * Again, I apologise for the lack of diffs. I can access Wikipedia where I am now only with an awkward workaround that is very slow and makes it really hard to post them.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 18:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Defining acceptable conduct under DS
I've started an inquiry that is directly related to AE, at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. AE admins may be particularly interested. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Word limit of response
Where would the appropriate place be to discuss modifying and or removing the word limit for responses to complaints? Here or ARCA? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the word limit for responding to requests at AE then this is the place. If you are talking about the word limit for responding to requests at ARCA then you want Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then this would be the place. I would like to propose that the 500 word limit apply only to the initial response to a complaint. It is manifestly unfair for a user to be disallowed from defending themselves from further accusations introduced after the initial complaint due to the word limit. In this edit an admin removed responses to further comments following the initial complaint. It strikes me as absurd that a. the initial complaint was allowed to grow past 500 words without once being forcibly refactored (in fact claiming the limit doesnt apply to responses) and b. that other diffs of supposed misconduct can be introduced by other users (eg here) with the reported user unable to respond due to the word limit. I understand being an admin at AE is not the easiest job on Wikipedia, but basic fairness would suggest that a user be allowed to respond, in full, to any accusations made against him or her. And this limit makes that impossible. So, if there needs to be a limit at all (and personally I dont think so, it isnt like it takes more than 10 minutes to read a thousand word response), then I think it should only apply to the initial response. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel there does need to be a word limit. AE isn't as bad as arbcom (we received a several-page word document appeal in my time on the committee, and people like Worm That Turned remarked that this was far from the longest they'd seen), and part of the idea of a word limit is to try and focus people's comments to the actual meat of the matter - nobody benefits from TLDR waffle. That doesn't mean that the current limits are correct though and inconsistent enforcement of word limits definitely is poor form. There is a balance to be struck and I wonder if something like (all limits excluding diffs, usernames and page titles*) would be better:
 * Filing party 300 word statement
 * Responding party 300 word response
 * Other involved parties 300 word statements
 * All involved parties: up-to 200 words follow-up per alleged incident**. Any subsequent follow-ups max 100 words.
 * All uninvolved commenters: up to 200 words, including follow-ups.
 * This has the advantage of being much fairer, but the disadvantage of being much more complicated. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * * A dispute involving Sandstein regarding the Shenge article should not be treated differently to one involving The Blade of the Northern Lights at List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars (users and articles chosen randomly). ** If three people talk about different incidents you get 200 words for each, if they all talk about the same one you get 200 words only. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of keeping the current overall 500 word limit, which is the same as for arbitration requests. This forces all parties to be concise and to focus on the specific diffs at issue in the request, and prevents lengthy back-and-forths about the editors' history, the underlying content disputes, etc. Remember, AE is not a discussion board, it is a forum for requesting admins to take action. Anything not related to why action should be taken, or not, in response to the diffs in the request is out of scope. And 500 words is plenty enough for that.  Sandstein   15:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If there need to be limits then I would actually favor going to a further extreme on it. Remove entirely third party responses, the initial complaint is given a set limit and the response a set limit, the end. They can respond to questions from the uninvolved admins. Part of the problem is how a single complaint can morph into something else entirely due to other users bringing other issues in to the initial complaint as "involved party comments". It makes the entire process disjointed and puts the reported user at a decided disadvantage in needing to respond to several different complaints at once. And it gives the impression, sometimes without any real basis behind any of the complaints, that there is an overarching problem if this many users are bringing this many diffs. If you want to make things more efficient and more fair here I think that would go a long way. If somebody wants to introduce something to AE they can open a request. And that would be both for third party responses in support or opposition to the reported user. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There needs to be limits, but the details need to obey the rules of fair play and should be biased towards the accused editor. It is the accused editor who stands to lose the most. I would reduce third-party comments to a minimum (say 200 words), keep the reporter to 500 words, and allow the accused 500 words for initial response and 500 words in total for responding to accusations not in the initial complaint. Brief replies to questions or new accusations from administrators should be free. Administrators can decide what "brief" means, but it is definitely not ok to make an accusation then delete the reply. I believe this will reduce the overall length of most cases as well as being more fair. Zerotalk 02:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Re: I am in favor of keeping the current overall 500 word limit, which is the same as for arbitration requests, I would take this further and limit the word counts for non-parties to 250. This would reduce the rat-hole effect where the parties may feel like they have to respond to each and every non-party. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unlimited word counts for parties, but would support reductions to current limits for non-parties. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Having the same word limit for the "accused" and the "accusers" is frankly idiotic. The way this typically goes is that a bunch of people will pile on and try to take an opportunity to "score" against someone they have a grudge with. So EVEN IF every single accuser observes their 500 word limit, the responder/accused is very much limited in how they can respond. Basically, applying the word limit to the subject of a report prevents them from defending themselves.

Which... might actually be the intent of the limit since the admin thinking around these parts is "I know better, I don't even need to hear from you", with the actual response to the accusations being viewed as a some kind of a nuisance.

Regardless, if someone writes too much, then folks won't read it anyway. So what's the point of this limit except to "show the subject who's the boss" by "Comments in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action"? And oh yeah, one more thing - does anyone know if ANY admin OTHER than Sandstein has actually ever enforced this limit or has it just been him?  Volunteer Marek  07:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - eliminating the 500 word limit for the subject of the report.  Volunteer Marek   07:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If nothing else I would stop any comments over the 500 word limit being removed entirely. Chop anything over 500 words off, or hat everything over 500 words or something. Removing it entirely is Orwellian. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  08:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removing the limit entirely for respondents to a complaint. If one wishes to impose sanctions on a user it is not too much to ask that they spend the 10 minutes reading their defense. The TLDR and now youre banned method strikes me as unjust. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removing the 500-word limit for responses. I see the main problem as additional complaints made by third parties, to which the subject of the report cannot effectively respond. Imagine this (not at all unlikely) scenario: Editor A complains about Editor B (500 words), B replies, but knowing that there could be further comments or questions limits their response to 400 words. Editors C and D then each add their own complaints (another 500 words each), and B is limited to just 100 words to respond to them. Editors E, F and G then pile in, each adding their own 500 words and new complaints, which B is not permitted to respond to. B would be expected to respond to 3000 words of complaint in just 500 words. This is so obviously unfair that I don't see how anyone could defend it. The only options that will ensure a fair and transparent process are to ban additional comments and complaints altogether, or to allow the subject of a complaint 500 words for each editor raising complaints against them. RolandR (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as presently construed. I do think limiting 3rd parties (e.g. to 300 words), and mildly increasing the complainant's word limit (e.g. to 800 words) would be useful - as well as increasing the word limit of any user whose conduct has been mentioned during the report. And I do think that in some situations - a word count extension, granted by an admin, would be due. However, I do not support an unlimited word limit for the subject(s) of the report. If the subject(s) of the report is merely defending himself, then TLDR is merely their own problem (and probably the whole stmt will be skimmed over if it is too long). However, report subjects often in their response levy accusations towards other editors - which may include the filer of the complaint and 3rd parties (whether they commented or not). In such a situation - it would be unfair for this counter-accused to have to read walls of TLDR text, and furthermore they would be unable to respond in their own word limit to the possibly quite long counter-complaint. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support/Weak oppose. I would support leaving in the word limit as written, but softening the enforcement with liberal application of IAR; clerks should not be robots, and should be able to tell the difference between someone being disruptive and someone not; on a case-by-case basis, clerks should be able to tell when exceeding the technical word limit should be allowed, versus when it is not.  If the do not have the trust of the community to exercise that sound judgement, they shouldn't be clerks.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose and support the limits suggested by Thryduff. We should allow each "accuser" to make one statement and the "defendant" to respond once to each accusation. It would make sense to place the response directly below the "involved editor" statement. The system is designed for admins to fact-check these statements and examine edit histories to quickly determine whether sanctions are appropriate; there is no need for involved editors to engage in an extended back-and forth. As always the numbers can be tweaked as necessary and admins should grant reasonable extensions if needed, especially if clarification is needed or new evidence is brought forth.
 * Uninvolved editor statements which expand the scope of the request may be cumbersome, but they also add important context. The behavior mentioned in an AE request is often just the tip of the iceberg and the editor's behavior in other situations can help determine whether or not it is an isolated incident. –dlthewave ☎ 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose While I get the motivation behind this, the reality is that the longer the enforcement case gets, the fewer the number of admins who are likely to read/comment on it. As it is, we have hardly any admins commenting on AE and long responses will just drive away everyone else. My impression is that a 500 word response to the original complaint, properly constructed, can usually get to the point fairly effectively.--regentspark (comment) 23:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm all for allowing more fairness in the ability to respond but removing word limits is not the way to achieve this. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reduce the limit for third-parties to 250 words and increase the limit for the accused editor. Keep the reporter to the current 500 words. I suggest 800 words for the accused editor in addition to unmetered brief responses to remarks of the handling administrators. Zerotalk 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removing word limits entirely at AE (or anything that goes toward achieving that), with a strong note that unnecessarily long responses may prove certain types of disruption in and of themselves. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This should be left only as a recommendation. I think admins should not cut the complaints here, unless it is obvious that a user was intentionally disruptive. A user may really need more space. Or it may be that he/she is unable to tell this concisely. Yes, this makes work of admins more difficult, but they always have the option of not responding to complaint. Removing good faith comments by other contributors (as Sandstein did on numerous occasions) was impolite to say the least, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Observation. One way (not the only one, of course) that responses become lengthy is when administrators hesitate to resolve complaints, and the passage of time leads editors to respond to one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A just-closed thread is a perfect example of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your statement was the longest coming in at over 1000 words. lol. Be careful what you wish for. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Court cases do not follow a uniform constraint on how much testimony can be presented or rebutted, and so it should be here. Additionally,  rushing AE isn't the way forward. Not everyone edits 24&7. Some time is required to allow editors who wish to participate a chance to hear about the notice, and then, to leave their comments.  “People forget how fast you did a job – but they remember how well you did it” ― Howard Newton. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Observation. I agree with  Sandstein    that AE is not a discussion board. However, as Tryptofish correctly noted, the way admins are dealing with that converts AE into a de facto discussion board. Actually,  the reported user does not have to respond to all accusations. It is admin's duty to analyse evidences and select those that deserve attention.  As far as I understand, only a fraction (sometimes, a small fraction) of accusations deserve to be addressed by the defending party.
 * In other words, if the defending party addresses only those accusations that are selected by admins, and only after all accusations have been posted (by the user who filed a report and by third party users), the 500 word limit will be quite enough. . That will even decrease admin's burden: instead of reading the whole (and sometimes irrelevant) responce of the defending party they will have to read just the answers to the questions they really want to know.
 * By the way, as soon as Veritycheck✔️ compared AE with courts, let me remind you that the parties do not talk to each other in the court, and all conversations are mediated by the judge. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - The following quote speaks for me - "I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short. ~ Blaise Pascal"  I'm of the mind that the entire AE-DS system needs an overhaul. Diffs are supposed to speak for the accuser whereas the accused has to respond not only to the initial accusation but to the individual accusations that are piled-on primarily by involved editors.  I would support closed hearings for AE so that it's limited to input from the accuser, the accused and a 5 panel jury.  Admins would comprise the jury, and I also believe the jury should change every quarter or perhaps every 6 mos.  I do not agree that a single admin should issue indef t-bans, or that hair-trigger t-ban reactions are the answer.  Why isn't arbitration enforcement being handled by the arbitration committee instead of individual admins?  If behavior complaints are directly associated with a content dispute (which is evident by allegations of wikilawyering, fillerbustering, RS complaints, noncompliance with NPOV, etc), then admins should not conflate the two, much less use their tools to resolve them - content disputes are like a pendulum that can swing either way at any given moment, which is one of the reasons I oppose hair-trigger t-bans by a single admin.  Admit or not, a t-ban is topic-related and topics involve content, which means admins should not be settling content disputes using their tools. AE, ArbCom, AN & ANI should not be used for that purpose, either.  The unpredictable outcomes of content disputes are what tell us no side is consistently right or wrong but that is a positive for the project, not a detriment -  and that is why t-bans are not always the answer. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 23:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Opposish - I wrote a detailed response; but it was too long. Basically, I think we need a limit for the sake of sanity and efficiency. I think that someone posting a complex case should be given some leeway with an upfront explanation of the length. (Albeit it may belong in another venue.) I think the respondent should be given a tad more leeway, with a warning that no one may read it. Basically, I think we need a limit -- but, it shouldn't be enforced by the Spanish Inquisition. O3000 (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Appeal against the topic ban
I would like to appeal against the topic ban imposed as it's clearly unjust and unjustified. It seems more than a bit extreme since it appears to be "topic ban" but it's actually a total ban. Is there any established procedure to go about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talk • contribs)


 * An appeal against your topic ban was already closed as declined by . You can now only appeal to WP:ARCA. See WP:AC/DS.  Sandstein   08:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

ARCA about original author clause in ARBPIA
--Shrike (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)