THC Science

WP:ARBAP2

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & NativeForeigner (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Preliminary statements by non-party editors (see note)[edit]

Note This case originated as a request relating the behaviour of Collect, which became intertwined with requests for arbitration regarding the (partly overlapping) American politics topic area. Two cases were opened, this one to deal with the the American politics topic and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others to look into the behaviour of Collect and those who interact with them. Statements below may related to both or only one of these cases. A user's statement here does not imply any involvement with the American politics topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX[edit]

Collect's contribution history consists of constructive editing overshadowed by a long-term pattern of BATTLEGROUND behavior and Gaming the system. His user page, user talk page, subpages (User:Collect/BLP), and essays such as WP:Mutual admiration society, WP:Sledgehammer, Collect/Pissing on essays one does not like loudly testify to his combative approach. He has an extensive block log for edit warring, and has edit warred other times without consequence ([1] [2] [3] [4]). His comments during content disputes are typically acerbic, dismissive, misleading and unyielding. He has misrepresented facts ([5] [6][7] [8] [9]), made WP:POINTY edits ([10] [11] [12]), forum shopped/canvassed ([13] [14] [15]), made carefully worded personal attacks ([16] [17]), and compared editors' contributions with McCarthyism ([18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]).

Collect persistently claims BLP violations at various fora, but when asked to substantiate his claims, he frequently evades providing straightforward answers ([24]), instead weaving convoluted semi-explanations and inapt analogies. Other times he simply doesn't answer legitimate questions. He insists on an unusually high, non-negotiable standards for BLP to including insisting on sources that verify other reliable sources ([25]). Many times the concerns are not BLP policy concerns at all ([26] [27]). In many BLP/N discussion, consensus found that his assertions of BLP violations were unfounded, yet he often persists in filibustering, forum shopping, and "moving the goal posts"([28] [29] [30]). Many of his BLP/N reports involve Ubikwit and apparently arise out a long-term conflict between the two.

There is a theory afloat that editors who have been critical of Collect are trying to eliminate a political opponent. While I acknowledge my own (US) liberal bias, I reject the thought-terminating notion that I, or any other editor, is trying to eliminate political opponents. A small percentage of my edits have been to political articles, but I have worked collaboratively with several conservative-leaning editors on political content (evidence available on request). I have also taken Collect's side on a number of occasions ([31] [32] [33]).

Both Fyddlestix and Jbhunley made good faith efforts to request that the community examine Collect's conduct (not content) at ANI, with abundant evidence. Unfortunately they were attacked as POV pushers and radicals ([34]), and the complaint was closed after eleven hours by an administrator.

We no longer have RFC/U. The extensive history, lack of receptiveness to discussion by Collect, and the dysfunctional environment at ANI, suggests that Arbcom is the last and only resort for a fair examination of Collect's conduct.

Dear ODear ODear/Is not a's conduct should also be scrutinized for unnecessarily inflaming disputes with comments like this.

(Note: I have included editors involved in the recent content dispute related to Project for the New American Century, however several of these users are not parties to the longer term conduct issues involving Collect.)

@Writegeist:I'm hesitant to provide detailed clarifications for each diff because of the 500 word limit, and perhaps it should occur in the evidence phase anyway. It is almost impossible to understand the WP:GAME issues without reading the entire threads.- Mr X 22:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitalismojo: (and others): This case has nothing to do with merits of the list article that was brought to AfD. Had I cared enough to research the subject more thoroughly, I'm almost certain that I would have voted to delete it as an undesirable POV fork. The issue at hand is a pattern of user conduct over a long period of time. That some of the above diffs relate to the AfD discussion is merely because they are the most recent and coincide with my perception that Collect's conduct has reached a tipping point.- Mr X 23:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: The case proposed is about Collect's long-term conduct, not politics, and not every editor under the sun. The other parties listed should be removed from the case if it is accepted.- Mr X 02:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent[edit]

Case scope: Collect, narrowly. NE Ent 02:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyddlestix[edit]

I have gone into depth on this in the past here here and here. I thought it might be helpful to tell how I (as a relative neophyte) first encountered Collect:

I had no prior experience of Collect, Ubikwit, or the PNAC page prior to stumbling across these edits by Collect: 1 2 3 4 5. This looked to me like WP:POINT and edit warring, so I tried to offer a compromise. Ubikwit responded nicely enough but I inferred that neither editor was going to be much interested in cleaning up the article, which was in a bad state.

I started some cleanup, but when I removed the 9/11 junk Collect replied to my talk page post, reinserted the questionable quote (which, by my count, 3 other editors had deemed wholly out of place in the article). I replied on the talk page with what I feel was a reasonable, well-thought out response, and removed the quote a second time, taking care to first add new, well-sourced text which I hoped might satisfy Collect.

Collect has treated me as an enemy ever since. He immediately filed this RFC, which as I told him, mischaracterized my position (but linked my edit). He refused to re-word it.

Since then I have observed that Collect sometimes calls for reinforcements on unrelated pages, and often cries "SYNTH" and "BLP" in situations where the violation is unclear. He refuses to reply when cornered with a request for specifics, only to reopen the debate elsewhere. Note those 2 diffs are exactly a month apart, and that the same issue is being discussed. Collect never replied to either post, but a day after the second one he did go to Jimmy Wales' UT page and posted the claim that the table was SYNTH again, without notifying any of the other parties in the debate. He then proceeded to badly mischaracterize the people debating him and his own actions. here for example he claims a group of us had "brought him" to drama boards, but Collect is the one who has made the most "board" posts by far: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. I made one.

The final straw for me, however was his suggestion that this was my "preferred" version of the PNAC article. This is a blatant falsehood, and Collect knows that - I've done more into improve that article than anyone else in recent weeks, removing much of the material that Collect himself objected to. I know that Collect knows this, because he thanked me for my edits. Yet now he accuses me of wanting to reverse my own edits, and to restore content which he knows I oppose.

Please Note that this drama and Collect's conduct issues long predate the AFD that I and others have been accused of trying to influence by making this complaint. The article @ AFD was created, I think, to bring an end to the conflict that started here one way or another. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this puts me over my (heretofore carefully adhered to) word count, but briefly: Dear ODear's suggestion that this is about blaming PNAC for the Iraq War, or about unjustly labeling people "neoconservatives," as well as MONGO's suggestion that this is some kind of "radical" liberal crusade against collect [35][36][37] are wholly without basis, and I will/would challenge them to produce diffs to back up their statements. Heck, I can't think of/remember a single other article in the American politics area that I'd edited before stumbling into this PNAC mess. My edits have also always been sourced with RS (usually academic monographs/journals), and been consistent with what the literature shows. Allegations of a relation to the Iraq war have always been clearly labelled as third party opinions, and countered through reference to literature that dismisses those assertions. PNAC was labelled neocon because an overwhelming majority of RS on the subject do the same.

If Collect is eventually found to have engaged in unacceptable behavior, I hope you will also take a glance at the people who have been constantly enabling and defending that behavior, despite it often being (in my opinion) clearly unacceptable. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jbhunley[edit]

I wrote up the basics on my complaint in this ANI post. The ANI that material was meant for was closed in a matter of hours. I will break out highlights as time permits. I do not know how long I have to write my statement and I want to get this material in before it closes.

I entered in to this at the 1st BLPN thread on Feb 10. My first edit to PNAC talk page March 2 2015. My first edit to PNAC article March 04 2015. My only other extended interaction with Collect was a collegial discussion on his talk page starting Mar 3 Jbh (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)So I have no history of conflict with Collect or in this topic. Jbh (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to A1candidate - Not offended by the WP:TROUT. Tastes a bit like crow though. Jbh (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some particularly bad comments by Collect

The purpose of this article is not to simply list people which is already done in the parent article, it is to connect them to the Bush administration per se, and to link them to a purported conspiracy to cause the Iraq War. - Imputing I had a bad motive for creating article .
After telling Collect that personal anecdotes (about McCarthyism) are not a useful argument in AfD - Is your argument actually serious- or just meant to demean those who actually seek to avoid the errors of the past? Some other references to McCarthyism [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], and [43] This is no longer analogy it is an attempt to frame the debate and conflate other editors with McCarthyism.
Collect's claim "Apparently some feel compelled to point out its evility... when paired with this, in reply to a question of Whose idea was it, anyway?, Ubikwit, Jbhunley, Fyddlestix, MrX mainly. A few others join in from point to point. - All of the editors mentioned were mentioned in Plain text not code that would generate notifications and they had not been notified the thread was open. Jbh (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of some of the issues - from a post at AfD -

While this is ongoing, and an AN/I thread is ongoing, this has been filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect. "May we live in interesting times" - but the primary bone of contention appears to be whether the material in this list violates WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, or any of the other reasons presented above which, at this point, I daresay agrees with my basic stance. As it is thus intimately connected to this precise AfD, it seems proper to tell folks here about it. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 5:45 pm, Today (UTC−4)[44]

I see no congruence between the above statement and the request made here by MrX. Jbh (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to ~~Floquenbeam~~ Courcelles Jbh (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC) - My opinion is that we need to focus on the behavior issues of Collect. In my short interaction with him I have found that the behavior which is frustrating but OK in a user talk conversation with no import is extremely disruptive when trying to improve the encyclopedia. I have found that once he takes a position there is no compromise and no consensus is accepted unless it is his consensus. I have found no way to break through this. Sources are discounted or not addressed. Nothing will change his position, he keeps repeating hypotheticals and will not detail his actual complaint. When asked "What, precisely, do you consider to be SYNTH in this situation? What information do you want the sources to include so it will not, in your opinion be SYNTH? He simply disengages from the dispute resolution forum he started. "[45] Only to bring the exact same issue up again, and again and again. This last one caused me to create, out of shear frustration at his unwillingness to engage in collaboritive editing, the article which ended up at AfD and precipitated the ANI complaint which led to this Arbcom request.[reply]
To fail to address the behavioral issues would, in my opinion, simply push the problem into the future and result in ongoing damage to the creation of the encyclopedia. If American Politics needs to be addressed I request it be considered a seperate issue. This is a behavior issue not a content issue. Thank you for your consideration. Jbh (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Dear ODear ODear I have seen no statements or implications of PNAC "causing" the Iraq war in the time I have been editing in this subject area. Diffs, I believe, should be provided for such accusations so as to avoid taring all with the same brush. Also you should note that Collect was blocked for that same week Ubikwit was. While I have not always agreed with and often vehemently disagreed with Ubikwit I have found them open to compromise and I can have an intellectually honest discussion with them about the sources. Jbh (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Dear ODear ODear - In response to your email now provided to ArbCom - feel free to search through my contributions. MONGO has said he will do the same thing [46] but did not offer a way to avoid it happening. It also makes me reconsider my opinion on this [47] issue of threats I thought was closed. Jbh (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Guy Macon[edit]

It appears that the standard "Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter" section is inadequate in this case, because of stated opinions such as "Accept as two distinct cases" and "Accept Collect case about that editor's behavioral issues. Postpone American Politics II". There should be two counts for the two proposed cases. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the reply in the clerk's notes section, I would strongly encourage the arbitrators to not discuss their options on the mailing lists and deal with the case opening by motion instead of by vote count. Those vote counts are an important part of any arbitration case, and help us non-arbitrators to give informed advice to you. It would be a simple matter to ask a clerk to create two vote tallies rather than us having to create workarounds like the "Presumptuous pseudo-clerking by Short Brigade Harvester Boris" section. I'm just saying. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Begoon[edit]

I don't have a view on the specific rights and wrongs here, because I haven't examined them. One thing does concern me, though. Whilst I can see the merits to achieving better focus by splitting into 2 cases, it seems to me that Collect is likely, then, to be "defending" himself in 2 simultaneous cases. That seems, on the face of it, a somewhat onerous expectation. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nature of the "split" and "separation"? Begoon ^talk 13:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Having come across a recent aspect of this and looked at it in some detail, it seems to me there is a case to be made that their are WP:BATTLEGROUND issues involving this collection of editors, which the community has not resolved. As usual proper analysis of who said what about whom and when would be required to establish exactly which editors require the application of which sized trout. If it is felt that one or more editors cause disruption only when editing a certain topic, then a topic ban is clearly an option.

I would suggest caution in opening an "American Politics" case. If the AfD referred to by AlanScotteWalker (with whose comments I agree) among others reaches the "wrong" conclusion, it is hardly a significant worry, nor will it be the first, or last, AfD to do so. I strongly doubt that any action by the Committee could make a whit of difference to the alleged, and quite possible, political bias in the community. Nor do I see that placing "American Politics" (broadly construed) under any known form of sanctions would be a useful exercise. Indeed we have far too much of the encyclopedia under various forms of sanction already.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough

Statement by Capitalismojo[edit]

Suggest a decline.

I have, I think, gotten along fairly well with Mr.X, but I find this an unhelpful request. The proximate cause is apparently Collect's "obstinate" BLP stance at the PNAC AfD debate. I along with apparently 26 or 27 other editors agree with the position taken by Collect there. Two editors wanted to keep, two suggest Keep/Merge. Collect did not start the AfD. Collect made ~~only two~~ several edits to the AfD debate, none problematic in my view. He is reliable and consistent in his BLP stance regarless of the politics of the subjects of BLPs.

This, therefore, seems to me as a poor use of ArbComm time and resources, and perhaps even as a misuse of ArbCom in a sense. It strikes me, perhaps unfairly, that this is using the process as punishment. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The AfD was closed with a delete (Collect's position) was the "clear consensus" per closer. 30 Delete, 1 Keep, 2 Keep/Merge, 5 Merge/Redirect, 1 Delete/Merge.

Request for greater clarity, from non-party Writegeist[edit]

Mr X, without commenting on the merits of the requested case itself, I'm finding it a little difficult to match some of your comments precisely to the diffs provided in support. E.g. re. Collect misrepresenting facts: can you be more specific about the particular facts misrepresented according to diffs 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27? Similarly with the diffs 45, 46, and 47 re. filibustering, forum shopping, and "moving the goal posts"—would you be willing to give more clarity here? And also as you may deem necessary elsewhere? Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ping|MONGO}} I don't quite see how anyone can disagree with the politics of a user who not only appears at articles on people, organizations, issues, and so on (there used to be list at his user page, which may or may not still be present there) that span just about the entire political spectrum, but who also periodically issues vehement denials of any particular bias. Reading the request for this case one can see that it was very clearly prompted, rightly or wrongly, by disagreement with behaviors, i.e. the perceived battleground mentality, system-gaming, edit-warring, dismissiveness, misrepresentations, insinuations, pointiness, personal attacks, evasions, straw men, and misuses of BLP policy, etc.; behaviors which, if long-term, ongoing, and corroborated by evidence, another user might reasonably view as sufficiently tendentious and disruptive to warrant Arbcom action. Writegeist (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's my party?[edit]

So let me get this straight: because I posted four words (Case scope: Collect, narrowly. ) suggesting the case not be about politics, I'm a "party" in the case about politics? NE Ent 02:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think everybody who commented is "party". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero removed you and Beyond My Ken, I just removed Floquenbeam. More will come. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove me. My comment was purely procedural. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're now removed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and I'll cry if I want to[edit]

Similarly, my last comment specifically pointed out that I should not be listed as a party, since I almost never edit American Politics articles and have never been part of any dispute concerning them. Please remove me as a party pursuant to part 3B of the motion. BMK (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the above, you've been removed. Courcelles (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BMK (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of Parties[edit]

According to the Arbitration Committee: "Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party." What it does is to give you the right to post 1000 words and 100 diffs in evidence if you wish to use that right. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

This case is distinct from the Collect case, and nothing about him directly is to be part of whatever this case is about (I'm still trying to figure out why this exists) but the statements are the same, with the bulk of it about Collect. I'm sure the committee has good intentions here but I am confused.--MONGO 05:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All statements were copied to both cases. The opening statements aren't of particular significance during the case anyway, since their purpose is to help us decide whether to take the case. Once the case is open, the evidence presented is what matters. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, copied against my will, making it look like I commented on an arbcom case that I very much want to avoid. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I have no edits in the area of American Politics that are not entwined in the Collect case. I believe any complaints relating to me can be addresses there. Is it possible to be removed from this case? Thank you. Jbh (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much in the same boat - I'm hard pressed to think of an article outside Project for the New American Century (ie, outside of my interactions with Collect) that I've edited which might fit within the "US Politics" area. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the both of you. If someone were to present anything against you here, you'll be re-added to ensure you have the opportunity to respond. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jbh (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is embarrassing.[edit]

The main page for this case is preloaded with a boatload of irrelevant and unremovable comments that have absolutely nothing to do with this case. I told you that splitting the case by motion was a bad idea but I had no idea how bad. I implore arbcom to start a fresh, new case about American politics 2 without any leftover comments about Collect, about how to best to split a case, or about users posting informal vote counts because of the original dumb decision to not tell the clerks to display the votes for each case.

I personally object to being forced to comment on an arbcom case that I did not choose to comment on. If I copied a comment by an arbitrator to another somewhat related page while keeping the signature and date intact I would be facing sanctions. Move all of the old comments to a subpage that clearly indicates the case the comments were made to and mark it historical. This is brain-dead and embarrassing. We're better than this. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This case seems to exist so any named party can sling mud at other named parties or add names of unnamed parties so they can sling mud at them. If arbcom is trying to put a stop to bickering on American Politics related articles (must be 300k of them broadly construed) good luck.--MONGO 23:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that there is a real problem in the US politics articles and I think arbcom can and will solve the problem without allowing any mudslinging. My only complaint is that our procedures for splitting cases totally suck. Nobody is to blame -- it just kind of grew that way -- but it is something we can easily fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles simply mirror the polarization in American Politics in real life especially over the last 15 or so years. Expecting polarized volunteers to get along and not bicker about such topics is expecting the impossible. I have not looked at whatever the American Politics 1 case was about but one would have hoped things would have been fixed then...maybe next year we can move onto part three arbcom case....I dunno.--MONGO 02:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The American Politics 1 case got not much participation relative to the immense amount of conflict that has blighted the topic area over the years. Consequently it didn't do much to fix the problems. This case also looks quiet so far, so I don't expect much from it. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy is absolutely correct. I hear-by withdraw permission to use my comment on this case. Moreover I wish to add the caveat on the Collect case that I am an an uninvolved editor. It should be perfectly clear from context, however perfect clarity it seems is not enough for this particular Committee. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC).

I just changed the section title from "Preliminary statements by non-party editors" to "Preliminary statements posted to another arbcom case by non-party editors" with the edit comment "I intend to strongly oppose anything that even hints that I have ever made an arbcom statement about American Politics."

Yes, I do appreciate an arbcom member removing me from the involved parties list and moving my statement here, but that does not change the fact that arbcom impersonated me and forged my signature, and I have seen no real apology or indication that they understand that this behavior is wrong or that they won't do it again. I never posted any statement concerning American politics 2. What if this had happened in the gamergate case and I ended up being harassed off-wiki because for a few days it looked like I was involved and did post a statement?

While I would never actually do such a WP:POINTy thing, what do you think would be the result if I took one of the arbitrators accept votes from this case and copied it into the Infoboxes II case, complete with signature and time/date stamp? I suggest that suddenly "I didn't make a statement in that case and you shouldn't have used cut-and-paste to make it look like I did" would become a violation that results in a block. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the revert of my edit with added explanation is just fine. Gets the point across better than I did originally, actually. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statements[edit]

It's a little nuts that the opening statements for the Collect case and American Politics 2 are identical. It's clear, for example, in Andy's statement, that he is referring to the American Politics case but his statement is cross-posted to the Collect case. Can these two cases become disentangled? The decision was to create two separate and distinct cases and no part of them should be automatically cross-posted to the other just because the initial case request mentioned them both.

And I say this because if this practices continues, it will confuse all parties involved. Some effort needs to go into making sure these cases are separate and do not overlap in content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to manually disentangling these two cases, we should change our procedures so this never happens again. See my comment in the section above this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that cross-posting statements was part of the process that the AC voted on and accepted when they took on the cases. I just hope that the two cases are separated sooner rather than later in the proceedings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather rare that two cases are opened from a single request like this. The arbs should work this out on their own time --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 13:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care how rare it is. You clerks, simply by doing your job (and I emphasize that no clerk did anything even slightly wrong here) did something that would have been a blockable offense otherwise. See my comment at [ Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#This is embarrassing. ] for a fuller explanation. The last thing I want to do is to fault you or any other clerk involved for simply doing your job, but I also am not going to allow anyone to forge messages in my name. My assumption is that this simply has not caught the attention of any arbitrator and that once they realize the consequences of their decision to split this case by motion they will draft procedures that insure that the inadvertent forgery will never happen again. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, it seems that every editor who has used {{Tq}} deserves to be blocked. AGK [•] 21:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing parties[edit]

As I mentioned in the request statement, if this case is being heard, Xenophrenic should be named as a party. I'm wondering if I can just post evidence against him and that will result in him being added, but not sure, thus this post.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 23:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incidetally, the evidence has already been set forth, for the most part, in a previous request that I linked to in the statement pertaing to this case[48]. Though I pinged Xenophrenic when mentioning him in the request pertaining to this case, he didn't respond. Considering that he had been the main antagonist in the dispute on the article raised by LM2000, it would be farcical not to list him as a party.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 00:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, if evidence is being presented against someone in a case, we'll add them as a party as they should be notified and have an opportunity to respond. Being added as a party isn't in itself negative, it just means you're kept up to date with notifications and can present longer evidence. It doesn't mean you're going to be sanctioned or that you've done anything wrong. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what would happen if someone was removed as a party, but later someone addressed actions by them as evidence in the case... so you're saying they'll just be added back in? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove me from the case[edit]

I wish to be removed as a party to this case. As I stated in the case request, the case I brought is not about politics. If other editors wish to pursue such a case, I wish them well. Thank you.- Mr X 00:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it deeply disturbing to be added to the Collect case, even more so to be added to this one, given that my comment was to the effect that that I could see no reason or benefit from such a case - in effect I was speaking against an idea of some Arbitrators. The message has to be - speak out against an Arbitrator and you will find yourself subject to Arbcom cases. I was against people being added to cases by fiat before, especially where the arb concerned had history with the editor they wanted adding. A blanket addition is not an improvement in process however, it is more likely to cost us valuable editors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC).

Please remove me as a party to this case. This is all becoming rather irritating.

I posted one very short, uninvolved comment at the original request.
I was subsequently added as a party to 2 separate arbitration cases.
With the exception of that one, I hoped, helpful comment I have no involvement at all.
I have received four notifications/pings concerning all of this.
I needed to post at the "Collect" case talkpage to get myself removed there.
Now it seems I need to post here too.

This is all very discouraging and inconvenient as a result of making one comment in a spirit of helpfulness. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 14:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Begoon, MrX, and Rich Farmbrough: I have removed you all as parties to this case and will move your statements to this talk page in a moment (I have not looked to see whether you should be removed from the Collect case as well). As repeatedly noted though being listed as a party to an arbitration case explicitly does not presume any wrongdoing nor indicate that findings of fact or remedies will result.

If anyone else wishes to be removed as a party from this case, please just make a simple request in this section (with a short explanation if you think it necessary) and it will be evaluated. Please use the equivalent talk page of the Collect and others case to make requests for removals from that case. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thryduulf. I do understand that being listed as a party does not imply wrongdoing.- Mr X 15:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. While being listed does not imply that one will be sanctioned, of course, the fact is that being listed (except in, shall we say, "unusual" cases like this) is possibly the only case where WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is broken. Not a few editors have decided to leave the project simply because an arbitration case is a whole lot of unpleasantness (and work), far outweighing the benefit of being allowed to donate ones time and effort.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC).

@Thryduulf: Please remove me as well. I have posted evidence in the Collect and others case, which is about editorial behavior, but will not do here. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel:. I've seen your request, but I've asked my colleagues for a second opinion before saying yeah or nay to it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you need to do, but I will not be party to this case. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed you. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to withdraw myself from this arbitration. From the edits on the evidence page, it appears this is devolving into what I feared. I would much rather not be involved in that. As much as my opinions are now known, I don't think being dragged down due to what this appears to becoming is something that would benefit myself, or the community at large.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, and NativeForeigner: See above, another removal request for the drafters to consider. AGK [•] 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully request to be removed as a party to this case. I was not an involved party in the collect case request,[49] making one brief comment on the advisability of opening the case. I have no ongoing disputes with any editors of any political persuasion and little advice to add to those who do. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitalismojo: I've removed you as a party as I agree your comment was procedural and mostly relevant to the Collect case anyhow.

@RightCowLeftCoast: I have not removed you at this time. Your statement is directly relevant to this case, and the evidence you have presented gives the impression of involvement. The caveat to this is that I haven't got time today to see if that impression is borne out when looking deeper, so this is not a final answer. Seraphimblade or NativeForeigner may be able to look sooner than I can and I wont disagree with whatever their conclusion is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this case continues, there are many more editors than we who have been listed (including those who have been removed), who have edited in the wide realm of "American politics", who are not parties here. This is evident by more recent evidence that has been presented/posted in an attempt to present some editors in a negative light who are not named parties. Therefore, being a party of this case is not a determining factor of the issue being discussed. Thus, the remedy ArbCom comes up with as a remedy, whatever that maybe, will impact parties and non-parties alike.

As I said in the evidence page, I am not going to engage in digging up dirt on other editors, but that appears to be what has occurred. A witch hunt against individual editors as an attempt to create a picture of all editors who edit within the wide realm of "American politics" does not help Wikipedia, IMHO. Moreover, the majority of evidence presented has been by those attempting to cast a negative light upon non-liberal editors.

Perhaps it is the failure of non-liberal editors to defend themselves/ourselves. Perhaps this is just backing of the statement that I made that got me involved here in the first place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see I have been “added by motion.” Please remove me. I’ve had precious little involvement in American political articles since the Sarah Palin circus seven years ago, where i learned my lesson. I made only one post on what is now the Collect arbcom case page, in which I simply asked for clarification from one editor as to the connection between his claims and his diffs (indeed I titled it “Request for clarification”), and queried a point of logic in a post by another. I have absolutely no interest in posting evidence to this case or participating in it in any way, despite Collect irrelevantly and gratuitously dragging me into the other one (from which I was removed by request). Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Writegeist: Done. I agree that your statement was not relevant to the scope of this case. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators active in editing articles within the scope of "American politics"[edit]

Should arbitrators who have or had been active in editing articles that can be seen as being within the scope of American politics recuse themselves from this case?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's far too general a question. Especially for a topic this broad, any edits whatsoever to anything that might be considered related is not sufficient. We might then have no one to hear the case. Beyond that, it depends on the individual circumstances. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ARBPOL: "An editor who believes an arbitrator should recuse will first post a message on the arbitrator's talk page asking the arbitrator to recuse and giving reasons. Should the arbitrator not respond, or not recuse, the user may refer the request to the Committee for a ruling."

If there's one or more arbitrators who you (or anyone) believe should recuse themselves, please let them know directly. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is the first arbitration that I have been asked to participate in, albeit reluctantly (for fear of what this may devolve into).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's an entirely reasonable question. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the scope of this case?[edit]

I apologize if this is answered somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of words spread out amongst the case pages, but from glancing over this case and the Collect case, I'm struggling to see what is sought here separate from the other case. Thank you. --B (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@B: According to the opening motion, This case is focused on a broad topic and will examine allegations of misconduct within the American Politics topic, which – for the purposes of this case – also includes the Tea Party Movement topic and any United States-related overlaps with the Gun Control topic. While Collect may participate in this case, no allegations concerning him may be made within it, nor any proposed findings or remedies posted. Hope this helps, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1932[edit]

What happened in 1932 that caused it to be used as a cutoff date? EllenCT (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, the Fifth Party System as per the opposition at [50]. EllenCT (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: American politics 2 (January 2016)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Nocturnalnow at 17:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Topic ban from "American Politics after 1932" imposed as a discretionary sanction under Remedy 1.2

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Nocturnalnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
D.Creish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vesuvius Dogg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

NorthBySouthBaranof
D.Creish
Vesuvius Dogg
Spartaz
NuclearWarfare
EdJohnston

Information about amendment request

Narrow the scope of the topic ban to Huma Abedin.

Statement by Nocturnalnow[edit]

I did a lot of clean up work here and added how Clinton's office was involved. The encyclopedia will not have my service on these types of articles if you leave the ban as is. I'd be much happier with a time limited or more scope limited ban, and the encyclopedia would be happier too :) Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

The checkusering of an IP which had made two comments on two separate project pages indicating a knowledge and understanding of policies, etc. can only be described as good-faith. As for narrowing the scope of the topic ban, I have no particular opinion, other than to restate the issues that Nocturnalnow presented on Huma Abedin; to wit, a persistent determination to use her Wikipedia biography to depict her in as negative a manner as possible, apparently because of his personal political disagreement with Abedin and/or Abedin's employer, Hillary Clinton. If the committee believes that Nocturnalnow can be trusted to edit other articles and biographies of modern political figures in a neutral, policy-compliant manner, I have no objection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D.Creish[edit]

Statement by Vesuvius Dogg[edit]

Nocturnalnow is understandably upset at a broad ban, particularly because his problematic editing history under this ID has been limited to Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin. I have said before that a topic ban related to these two seems to me more appropriate than the broader ban, which seems vindictive in spirit. (I'm a disinterested editor w/o interaction history w/ Nocturnalnow or editing history on those two pages.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spartaz[edit]

I don't believe there is anything add beyond the contents and discussion in the relevant AE thread [51]. I do not intend to comment further unless there are specific questions for me from the committee. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare[edit]

I have no statement to make at this time. Drop me a note if my input would be valuable. NW (Talk) 22:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

Statement by L235[edit]

I'm seeing phrases like reasonable exercise of admin discretion being used. Is the Committee considering these appeals with the standard of review being abuse of discretion? It seems bureaucratic to even use a standard of review like that (only overturning if the enforcing admin erred) rather than considering appeals fresh, on the merits, "if I were the enforcing admin, considering everything, would I have imposed this sanction or a lesser one?" -style review. If the Committee does defer to enforcing admins on appeal at ARCA, could that be made clear in the procedures? It's not currently clear that the Committee will defer to enforcing admins, or to what level the Committee will do so. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c · ping in reply) 03:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Interesting; I don't participate much at AN/ANI, but, for example, block appeals (which are much more analogous to sanctions appeals than DRV/other closure reviews) are granted or durations shortened based on a consensus of editors believing that they would have made a shorter block themselves, even if they would also hold that the block could be reasonable under the blocking policy. I don't suppose this is related to this specific request, though, so I'll shut up unless you want further reply. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mouse001[edit]

I do not agree with the admin's decision and I believe that it was unfairly biased against NocturnalNow. Much of the statements that were made by NorthBySouthBaranof and others supporting the ban were discredited, including the reasoning for including two out of four of the "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy" that were presented in the arbitration request. Disregarding the "truth-fudging" by NorthSouthBaranof, I think many reasonable and objective people would see this is minor mishap that should not result in NocturnalNow receiving topic ban from US Politics, let alone a ban from Huma Abedin.

NocturnalNow also raises a good point about the conclusion by Ed. I believe it was improper because it was determined so speedily without adequate evaluation of NorthBySouthBaranof's statements and sound reasoning provided by others who opposed the ban.

Lastly, if this ban is to be kept I suggest that NorthBySouthBaranof to receive a ban as well, else this would be evidence of a double standard on Wikipedia, because he is responsible for much of the edit warring at Huma Abedin and holds sole responsibility for the first two diffs that he himself listed under "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy". He was found just as much responsible for the BLP violations as NocturnalNow in the very first arbitration request that he submitted against NocturnalNow, and he has again committed violations (that are worse than those committed by NocturnalNow) so he should be held to the same standard. He also appears to have a habit of using language that is unfit for Wikipedia because it does not foster constructive discussion.--Mouse001 (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]

Commenting to point out continued canvassing by this user (see [52]), including soliciting a response from Mouse001 who commented above. This behavior was pointed out by Gamaliel on AE in this edit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Cleaned a bit. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c · ping in reply) 20:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes: I've notified the listed parties and added diffs. Also, a quick reminder to the filing editor that pursuant to WP:ACDS#appeals.notes, once this request has been reviewed by the Committee via this ARCA request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c · ping in reply) 20:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll actually recuse to give a statement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c · ping in reply) 03:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Seraphimblade. I strongly object to the idea that it is within our mandate or even a good idea to change admin's non-egregious decisions because we disagree with them. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @L235: indefinite and not me infinite; in 6 months to a year I might entertain an appeal based off of a user's ability to edit non-disruptively in other areas. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nocturnalnow: NW is not a CU and the use of CU is not in this forum's remit nor does it have any bearing on your appeal. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 07:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The topic ban is certainly a reasonable exercise of admin discretion, so I would decline to alter that in any way. As to the checkuser, I think there was good cause to believe that the IP was in fact an experienced editor editing project space while logged out, and I think it was reasonable to check. Regardless, as the check came up empty, it wouldn't have had any effect on the ultimate outcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @L235: Yes, "abuse of discretion" would be a good way to describe the standard. That's really the standard when we review any administrative actions—not "Would I have done the exact same thing?" but "Is this a reasonable and defensible action given the circumstances?". I would see it as far more bureaucratic for us to be nitpicking and second-guessing every admin action, or reversing or modifying them in cases where they were not egregiously excessive, abusive, or obviously mistaken. That's always been common practice when reviewing admin actions, not just with us but in cases like a DRV or closure review as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per SeraphimBlade. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline --kelapstick^(bainuu) 10:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Devcline DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: American politics 2 (July 2016)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by StAnselm at 05:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Stadscykel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[53]
[54]

Statement by StAnselm[edit]

We have previously discussed this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock appeal by User:Stadscykel, but were not able to resolve the disagreement.

Coffee has placed Donald Trump and United States presidential election, 2016 under page restrictions, which includes that violations can be sanctioned without warning. Stadscykel made this edit to Donald Trump, and was blocked without warning by Coffee under discretionary sanctions. Is this a correct block per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions? That is, does the page notice alert at Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump count as a DS alert? Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions is unclear at this point. It says that "no editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict". It goes on to define "aware" as (among other things) "given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict". But "alert" is defined as having the standard template message "placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted". This would seem to indicate that Stadscykel did not receive the necessary DS warning. Furthermore, if Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions mandates that all editors need to be alerted before they can be sanctioned, is Template:2016 US Election AE (which is on the Donald Trump talk page), allowed to say that editors will be "blocked without warning"? (I note that Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump does not mention being blocked without warning, and there is no indication that Stadscykel ever saw the talk page notice.)

Statement by Coffee[edit]

My understanding is that the editnotice does indeed qualify as the required warning. I would definitely be interested if the Committee says otherwise. Such a ruling would have an immediate effect on the GMO RFC that I and The Wordsmith are moderating, as we're using the page restriction format to enforce DS per the previous ARCAs you're aware of.

I am taking some time off to think about everything that happened today, to reevaluate my actions and to calm down some. I would appreciate if you could take that into consideration (i.e. email me if you have an immediate need for me to comment, I'll gladly provide my cell number as well if necessary). I also do not intend to rehash all of my arguments from earlier (there's an obvious sign that I'm missing something here, but I'm not going to discover the answer via those types of discussions), I would just like some guidance from the Committee so I can be that sure I'm properly enforcing your actions.

I apologize to The Wordsmith for leaving him with most of the work on the RFC for a bit, but I feel it's best for me to reset before I move forward. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Signing off... — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Callanecc: The whole point of this restriction is to reduce the unnecessary workload faced by editors actually working to make these political articles neutral, reliably sourced, properly weighted, and thorough (and in the case of the BLPs, in full compliance of the requisite policies)... I'll refer to such editors as "content editors" henceforth. Having a 0RR restriction would allow "drive-by" editors to place something completely without consensus on the page, and having the 1RR restriction creates an issue wherein a drive-by editor can easily force the same issue when adding content that has not existed in the article before (as long as only one content editor is actively watching the article). So the idea for prohibiting "potentially contentious content without firm consensus" was to prevent a situation where an editor adds something, a content editor reverts it (using up their 1RR), and then the other editor uses their one revert to replace their edit. That happening is obviously not optimal, and it actually has happened in these articles before. I would love, and am completely open to, finding a different way to word the restriction, as long as we can find an acceptable method to reduce the workload of our content editors and ensure that the media is not scrutinizing our behaviour in the process. Do you all have any ideas on how to address this particular issue? Or do you feel it is literally outside of the available restrictions that your discretionary sanctions provide? (I'd also love to hear from Anythingyouwant, one of the most prolific editors on Donald Trump, on their ideas on how to solve this issue.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Great point. Perhaps something like "if an edit is reverted, you are prohibited from adding the contended edit back until consensus is found for it"? Better wording can be used for the final restriction, but this would seem to be a good idea based on your input. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waggers, Callanecc: From what I'm seeing, yes. This should completely remove any issues regarding admins blocking users unfamiliar with the area, who are editing in good faith. It would definitely seem to make any editor's intentions quite clear too. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc: I've updated all of the editnotices per your request, (as can be seen in the log), the new wording is now: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.. I hope that the wording is now satisfactory to the Committee. Please inform me if I need to change anything else. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: That's the entire point of changing the wording. I can ensure you that such blocks will not happen in the future, now that the letter of the restriction can be followed without overreaching onto editors without familiarity with the situation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stadscykel[edit]

It is obvious that the editnotice does not consitute the required alert. Indeed, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Alerts says clearly that the alerts "only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted".

Besides, I disagree with the content of Template:2016 US Election AE created by User:Coffee and placed by him on the talk pages of the relevant articles, particularly with the section "Further information" and, more precisely, the sentence "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence", as nothing in the current rules regarding the discretionary sanctions suggests that. Meanwhile, I agree that the sentence (from the same template) "Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" describes my understanding of the current policy, though I see no way how this could have been applied to me.

I disagree that there is any sufficient reasoning why this edit should be "punished" by a block; the idea that re-stating the fact already presented otherwise in the article can be seen by an editor new to the topic as a "potentially contentious edit" (as the warning from Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump tells us) is ridiculous. Indeed, the logic behind having to issue the official alert is providing the right to learn about the policy which applies to the topic in question, and having the possibility to apply sanctions if the offences continue. Besides, I do not consider this edit as contrary to the objective of the discretionary sanctions on the topic of American politics, even through it is contrary to the style guide (as discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes), as I have neither added nor removed any fact from the article. There is no warning anywhere that the breach of this particular "style guide" (which is not presented to the editors at all), could result in a block without warning, nor is there any evidence suggesting that this type of sanctions is allowed.

My opinion is that Coffee's current application of the discretionary sanctions turns all the topics covered by discretionary sanctions into a minefield for editors not previously informed about any possible consensuses which have possibly been achieved somewhere else. I hope that the Arbitration Committee agrees with me that creating these "minefields" is not the intent of this policy. Stadscykel (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith[edit]

According to WP:ACDS, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator...Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}})."

That would seem to suggest that the standard Editnotice is a valid method of notification, specifically for page restrictions. While this seems to be at odds with the portion mentioned above, and clarification would be beneficial, the policy clearly states that editors ignoring page restrictions (as listed in the editnotice) may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. Coffee's block could have been handled better (though I think it is within policy, discussion would have been preferable), the unblock should have been handled better (anything marked as Arbitration Enforcement probably should not be overturned without permission from Arbcom or a strong consensus, even if you don't think AE applies). SlimVirgin [55], Trusilver [56], Dreadstar [57], and Yngvadottir [58] were desysopped for overturning Arbitration Enforcement blocks out of process, even though they all thought they were bad blocks as well, with Dreadstar even logging in their unblock message "Invalid block".

The Committee needs to clarify the editnotice issue, but they also need to make a strong statement that if something is labeled as AE and properly logged, it can't be overturned out of process even if you think it was a bad block. If an admin is abusing that by labeling regular blocks as AE, that would be grounds for desysopping, but what happened here is clearly a grey area. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, and Doug Weller: Before closing, there is still the issue of whether or not reversing a block carried out under AE (even if questionable or a bad block) is to be allowed. We also need to clarify in WP:ACDS explicitly whether or not editnotices are considered a valid form of notification. Can this be done via motion? Or do we have to go through the excessive referendum process in WP:ARBPOL? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: The Presumption of Validity solves that issue, yes. The other is partially rectified, we just need a ruling on whether or not it is valid for an editor who has not been templated to be sanctioned, if they edited on a page with the DS editnotice. Currently two parts of WP:ACDS seem to conflict on this, and that's the whole reason this ARCA request happened. So far, I think Opabinia regalis has the best idea on this, in that it can be a legitimate replacement for the template but only outside of Article-space. I might even go a bit farther and exclude the Talk: namespace as well, since plenty of inexperienced editors end up there. Whereas if they're in Project-space or Template space, etc, they're probably experienced enough to notice it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad[edit]

I commented on this block and unblock in the AN thread. Those comments are equally relevant here, and if it's all right, I'll simply refer to those comments rather than repeat them all here. If there are any questions I'd be happy to address them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like some of the others commenting below, I am a bit troubled that the focus of the discussion thus far has been on procedural clarification. Obviously, to the extent that there are issues of governance or procedure that people think are unclear, clarifying them is good. But let's not lose sight of the big picture here, which is that this was an extremely troublesome block.

How did we get to the point where a hard-working, dedicated, good-faith administrator, whom I respect, came to make such a block? Precisely by focusing too much on the wording of procedures, and "discretionary sanctions" protocols, and not enough on what is the purpose of blocking.

Blocking is a last resort. It should never become routine where good-faith editors are involved. It should never be used as a substitute for discussion with editors who can be expected to understand when expectations are explained to them. And the fact that a given page or topic-area is under discretionary sanctions, while it may justify the reasonable creation and enforcement of tighter editing rules for those pages, does not change this basic norm.

As I wrote in the AN thread, I personally wrote the requirement of a prior warning into the DS procedures nine years ago (in the Israel-Palestine case). I did so precisely to avoid the situation we have here, in which a good-faith editor new to a page made what he reasonably thought was a routine edit and is suddenly hit, not with information about how the page must be edited, not even with a warning, but with a block coming totally out of left field. There are very few, if any, situations in which such a block is warranted and this was not one of them.

The question presented is not whether the wording of the edit notice was sufficiently clear, although it obviously wasn't. The question presented is not whether an edit notice, without more, is sufficient warning that editors may be blocked for first offenses, although it obviously isn't. The question is whether editors who are acting in good faith and have no idea they are doing anything wrong should, absent extraordinary circumstances, be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule and told how they can comply with it going forward. The answer is that they should not.

I hope never to see another block like this one again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: I agree that the wording you propose is an improvement to the edit notice, but please do not block good-faith editors who have made an isolated edit that they may not have realized was a violation (either because they haven't followed the revert history or they didn't notice the edit notice) without first discussing with them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Kirill Lokshin, and Doug Weller: and other arbs: I think it would be good if you could clarify that this is the expectation. Our experienced administrators can hopefully distinguish people who are aware of the rules and disregard or try to wikilawyer around them, versus situations such as happened here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: plus the arbs: It's also been pointed out to me on my talkpage that the new wording omits the usual exception for edits addressing BLP violations. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: plus the arbs: Although I understand the rationale for a namespace-based approach in deciding whether an edit-notice without more is a sufficient DS warning, I fear that there's still too much risk of sanctioning good-faith editors who inadvertently overlook the warning. To me, I'd much rather err on the side of requiring a formal DS notice to an editor before sanctioning him or her. If we want to make exceptions, at most they should cover situations where the edit would have been obviously problematic anyway even apart from the discretionary sanctions. Administrators should be able to distinguish between a case in which an editor has obviously done the wrong thing and is rules-lawyering about the warnings, versus other cases.

In the case of doubt, there will usually be little harm to issuing the warning: Either the warned editor will misbehave just once more, in which case a sanction can follow without dispute over its fairness or legitimacy; or the editor will not misbehave again, in which case the goal has been achieved without a sanction or a block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the latest comments, I understand User:Opabinia regalis's point that some editors would prefer to be informed or reminded of DS on a mainspace page rather than receive a personalized notification. Personally I think the avoidance of out-of-the-blue blocks or sanctions is most significant, but this can be achieved in various ways. What is crucial is that administrators are careful to avoid such blocks (e.g. by giving a final warning rather than blocking or sanctioning where an editor's intent is unclear).

As for not further escalating the degree of difficulty of overturning an AE sanction, I agree wholeheartedly with Opabinia regalis. We do not want a cowboy culture in which admins overturn each others' AE actions (or any actions) willy-nilly, but we do not want unjustified blocks lingering for days, either. In this instance, two experienced administrators plus one other editor concurred that the block was bad at the time the editor was unblocked. (When I came upon the AN thread I became the third administrator to opine that it was a very bad block. Post-unblock the thread continued for some days and basically no one, other than the original blocking admin, defended the block.) Significantly, the unblock took place 12 hours after the unblock request was posted; it was only a 48-hour block in the first place, so that having days of discussion would have defeated the entire point of the unblock request; and it was not just a non-consensus block but an awful one, which had the blocked user thinking of quitting the project—and me not blaming him. The unblock under these circumstances was the right call, and in the unfortunately and hopefully unlikely event that these circumstances occurred again, a speedy unblock would again be the right call. Presumptions in favor of upholding AE actions and consensus requirements for overturning them should not be taken to extremes; nor, as I argued in lonely dissent multiple times when I was on the Committee, should inflexibility and automatic actions ever be written into the ArbCom's procedures and norms. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by L235[edit]

It is generally recognized that enforcement of page restrictions validly imposed under discretionary sanctions do not require a prior alert. Obviously, editing a page with a DS editnotice does not mean that anyone editing that page is "alerted" to DS, only that the specific page restriction previously imposed under DS may be enforced. However:

Kirill's question regarding the validity of the original page restriction is a good one. My personal view is that viewed in the most restrictive light possible, the restriction requires a consensus before any edit – which seems to be less restrictive than blanket full restriction and, in the alternative, less restrictive than a "prohibition[] on the addition or removal" of any content on the entire page "except when consensus for the edit exists" (WP:ACDS#sanctions.page).
In addition, I agree with The Wordsmith that the Committee should make a formal statement – perhaps by motion – that any admin action that purports to be AE, even if there is question as to whether it is valid, should not be lifted without the AE/AN consensus or ArbCom motion. Challenges to whether the action was validly AE should be brought on appeal.

Respectfully submitted, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Reformatted, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made the above (procedural) statement before reading the AN thread. Having read that now, although admins have wide latitude in fashioning an appropriate discretionary sanction, they should be reminded that blocking should not be the first solution that comes up when dealing with good faith editors such as Stadscykel. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid any doubt, DS ≠ AE. All DS actions are AE actions, but AE actions are not necessarily DS actions. Blocks under DS page restrictions, even without DS procedural protections such as alerts, are AE sanctions and are subject to standard modification procedures. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ArbCom Clerks: FYI, the last unsigned arb comment is by DGG. I'd template it but I'm recused here. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

I think that page sanctions are not the same as discretionary sanctions imposed under ARBCOM. My thinking is that page sanctions are blocks given out with permission of ARBCOM, but should not be considered an ARBCOM block, so that a regular appeal process can be used. Under the rules, in order for a block to be an ARBCOM block, it must have valid notices, etc. The page sanction is just used to prevent contentious edits, but is not the same as an ARBCOM block.

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

It should be plainly obvious that individual notification of what DS for a particular topic are. The page notices are for editors already aware of the topic Discretionary Sanctions and makes clear that the page falls under them. That doesn't mean we should presume that a page notice is sufficient to fully inform editors about the restrictions. AGF requires at least a good faith attempt to individually warn each editor about the sanctions and the topic area associated with them. If we wish to be a welcoming and safe community, admins with the block button shouldn't be the door greeters but rather should be attempting to explain the rules and what they believe is a sanctionable offense before sanctioning. It stands reason on its head to make the most unappealable block/ban also the one with least notice. A block for vandalism generally requires a warning and if it escalates to block, the appeal template can be used. But as used here, a no-warning AE block has a complicated and higher threshold for appeal. It should be more difficult to impose an AE block than than general disruption block precisely because the AE topic is more nuanced, the block more severe. --DHeyward (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has least three burdens in imposing a sanction for a page restriction violation. The first is maintaining the list of "certain content" that he is restricting. The second is to make sure consensus hasn't changed the list. The third is to inform the editor on the editors talk page about Discretionary Sanctions that allowed the list AND a pointer to the list. The burden for notice is higher for Page Sanction random content restrictions, not less.

@Kirill Lokshin: The problem is that templates for pages subject to AE DS is an overreach of the wording in the decision for pages subject to DS. The template appears to give authority to block for any contentious edit without warning as part of a page restriction, the ArbCom decision does not. --DHeyward (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Okay, you got me. I am not hip enough to know what MEGO is and following the link did not help. What is MEGO and where do they camp? --DHeyward (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem[edit]

Speaking only to the idea of using edit notices as a replacement for the alert to a user about DS in place on a page, I strongly discourage this as an acceptable replacement. At least for myself, the appearance of a editnotice is like banner ads on other websites, and my own eyes slip right past them unless they are brightly colored, large, or something I am specifically looking for. It is very easy to miss these if you have been editing WP for long enough. On the other hand, a talk page message on the user's page is not likely to be missed, and can be readily treated as a warning directed at that user (even if it is copy-pasted warnings). Once warned about the general topic DS, those editors can continue to edit elsewhere and aware that DS applies to a certain range of topics, they should be informed enough to watch for editheaders to know whether a page falls into the same sanction or not.

Noting the other factor, this GMO RFC, if I were specifically planning to comment on an RFC, it is reasonable that a statement in the header of the RFC (not as a editnotice) is going to have to be read for anyone replying to that RFC, so in such a case, the broad alert about the existing DS can be put there instead of warning every user that replies the first time. That DS warning can be repeated in the editnotice, but I think the RFC header would be reasonable assured to be something that had to be read by all participants. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gerda[edit]

My trust in arbcom is not the highest, as you may know. They can pleasantly surprise me if they manage to send a clear message that an admin should at least look at an editor's contribution before blocking, and - if the victim is obviously a good-faith editor who helps this project by gnomish edits - please talk before a block ("Talk to the user who offended, tell the user how you feel about it, trying to achieve modification or revert."). The editor made three edits in 2016, so missed all discussions about religion in infoboxes, possibly even missed all discussions about infoboxes. Believe it or not: there's life on Wikipedia untouched by noticeboards. It needs preservation, not blocks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re Kirill Lokshin: you emphesize "prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content", but the one edit in question did not add content nor removed content, only repeated it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller and others who mentioned "potentially contentious edit": that is so vague a term that every edit can be construed to fall under it. If an edit is contentious, revert it with an explanation in the edit summary, - no need to block. If it happens again - quite likely when a new user doesn't know how to read an edit summary and only sees that their "improvement" disappeared - contact the user's talk, refer to the article talk (another secret for a new user), in other words, assume good faith, - no need to block for the first time, without warning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43[edit]

Not going to comment on the nature of the block as I'm not involved in the topic at all, but I'm curious for clarification since it seems difficult to say this isn't notification from a WP:COMMONSENSE approach. The edit notice clearly states discretionary sanctions are in play, and editors need to go through that notice to edit. That should be the end of that question there. If it were only just something like a 1RR notice only, I might be singing a slightly different tune in regards to awareness of DS, but editors are still expected to follow even that 1RR notice. It shouldn't be any different for awareness of DS.

Basically, if this edit notice is not appropriate for proper awareness simply because it is not listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts, we're dealing with a WP:BUREAU problem because we only need to scroll down a few sections to the page restrictions that say, Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. That wording should invalidate any claims that an admin cannot take action solely because the editor didn't get a talk page template. Not to mention that the user talk page template is not the only indication listed that an editor is aware of DS. The entirety of WP:AC/DS and the wording at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions makes it clear that editors are aware even if it's not explicitly stated in the awareness section.

To cut down on this potential for bureaucracy, I would suggest adding an explicit 4th option under the awareness section that is some variation of:

4. An editor has edited a page with an edit notice explicitly detailing that discretionary sanctions are in effect for the article.

This would be redundant with other wording on the page for the most part, so it's not really adding anything new that would constitute a "new rule" per se. It would however require an explicit mention of the discretionary sanctions as happened in this specific case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

I'm not really commenting on the central matters here, but I want to request that the Arbs be careful, in replying here, not to do any collateral damage to the GMO RfC that is in progress. There are editors who do not like what the community seems to be leaning towards, who are looking for ways to discredit the RfC process, and they will seize upon anything said by Arbs here, that could be construed as reflecting badly on how Coffee and The Wordsmith have utilized DS in carrying out the RfC. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read what Newyorkbrad said to the Committee about prioritizing the good of the project above rigid application of the rules, and I want to agree. Broadly speaking, it is good advice that Arbs sometimes seem to get distracted from in the course of your workload, even if you agreed with it before being elected. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petrarchan47[edit]

My comment is only in reference to Tryptofish and his plea to protect the GMO RfC. His statement contradicts the facts as I see them. There are serious concerns with this GMO RfC process, and they were mostly raised (before being quickly silenced by Wordsmith) before the RfC began. To say that concerns raised now (by plural editors?) are only due to RfC comments and their overall direction is pure conspiracy theory and has no place on this noticeboard sans proof.

Statement by Blackmane[edit]

I was the one that came across the unblock appeal. Opening up an edit window in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I notice the page restriction box but my eyes slide right past them without reading their substance and I scroll straight down to the editing box. One could easily argue that it is the responsibility of the individual editor to take the time to do due diligence. However, we're in an age where banner ads are viewed as intrusive annoying things and the page restriction box has all the hallmarks of a banner ad and is likely to automatically trigger the same response.

In my view, the edit notice should not qualify as appropriate warning by itself. It should serve as a reminder notice after a DS warning. Consider a speed limit sign; when you first set out learning to drive, you won't know what those white boards with a number surrounded by a red circle means, but once you do every time you see one you are reminded of what it is for. Blackmane (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

There needs to be a limit on what one administrator can impose as a sanction. I understand desperate times and all that, but this is as close to thought crime enforcement as Ive seen here. A blanket ban on "potentially contentious edits" is not a reasonable exercise of authority. Its one thing to restrict specific material, eg no one can add material about some candidate's view of the Birther movement or Black Lives Matter or whatever to the lead, or even to restrict reverts of such material, but to ban an edit to a page on the basis that some other person on the internet finds it objectionable or otherwise contentious? Regardless of whether an edit notice constitutes sufficient notice, there should be some limit on just how far an admins discretion is allowed to go. And I think a subjective open-ended restriction on edits, not even reverts but edits, should be on the other side of that acceptable sanction line. Nableezy 07:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Waggers[edit]

I came across the discussion at WP:AN after three users had commented, all of them expressing a view that Stadscykel should not just be unblocked, but unblocked speedily and that Coffee's block as a terrible block. With speed evidently of the essence I reviewed the block and it seemed very clear that Coffee had made a mistake, which I assumed at the time to be an honest mistake. With Coffee not around at the time to consult on the matter I took the decision to reverse the block, with a note at the AN discussion that should consensus emerge that the original block was correct I would have no objection to it being reinstated. I believe I was correct to do so and stand by my actions. It is worth noting that no administrator involved in the discussion, including Coffee, has seen fit to reinstate the block despite my comment that I would not object to that happening.

Essentially that's where my own involvement ends, other than returning to the AN discussion to try and summarise it and move towards closure. All the above was done without taking a firm view on Coffee's block of Stadscykel, but while I'm here I would like to comment on that. The block was clearly wrong; others have explained why in their words and I would like to do so in mine.

It seems a lot hinges on Coffee's assertion: "My understanding is that the editnotice does indeed qualify as the required warning." So let's look at the edit notice; it says users are not allowed to do any one of three things:

make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article
making any potentially contentious edits without consensus on the talk page of the article (emphasis mine)
breach discretionary sanctions on the page

Nobody seems to be suggesting that Stadscykel breached 1RR, and rightly so: the edit in question was the user's only edit to the article. As StAnselm has pointed out a number of times, the notion of adding the subject's religion to the page has indeed been discussed and reached discussion on the talk page of the article[59]. Others have pointed to a Village Pump discussion which they believe somehow trumps [no pun intended] this, but the edit notice makes no mention of the Village Pump - it requires consensus on the article talk page and that requirement is satisfied. That leaves the third matter, of discretionary sanctions. The link in the editnotice only takes editors to a description of what discretionary sanctions are, not a list of sanctions in place on that article - so a new user to the article such as Stadscykel has no easy way of finding out what sanctions exist. But more importantly, WP:ACDS#Awareness_and_alerts is very clear about what constitutes an editor being aware of a sanction and it is equally clear that Stadscykel had not been made aware of any sanction according to that procedure. Waggers TALK 10:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A short addition to the above; apparently the sanction Coffee things Stadscykel breached is a page restriction the article in question. At the DS log, Coffee logged this as "The following pages have had page restrictions applied to them, due to their high visibility" followed by a list of pages. Coffee did not specify which page restrictions were in place either there or in the edit notice. As discussed above, there was a talk page consensus for Stadscykel's edit so did not breach any "prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)"; nor, as discussed, did it breach any revert restrictions; neither did Stadscykel use some devious means of circumventing any form of protection that was in place on the article in order to make the edit in question. Those are the only types of page restrictions that exist. I would argue that not only was Coffee's blocking of this user incorrect, but that Coffee's logging of the page restrictions in force at WP:AC/DSL is meaningless unless the log entry specifies which page restrictions are supposed to be in place. It is not sufficient to say "there are some page restrictions". Waggers TALK 10:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc and Coffee: Am I right in thinking that under that wording, Stadscykel would not have been blocked, since they didn't add the contended edit back? (They were blocked after their first and only edit to the article). In which case, are you satisfied that it would solve the problem? Waggers TALK 08:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID[edit]

Just to expand on Waggers comment - other than Coffee (who is obviously not impartial) subsequent further discussion by those uninvolved in no way supported Coffee's position. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee[edit]

While the Arb discussion below is on the literal minutiae of the actual rules (and, I guess, has to be to some extent (added July 7)), there's one thing that's clear to me. When an innocent new editor sees an edit notice that says they can be blocked for doing something "potentially contentious" (with that nebulous term unexplained), makes one good-faith edit on each of two articles with no idea what constitutes "potentially contentious" and considers their edits to be uncontroversial, and then gets blocked for it without any prior explanation of what was "potentially contentious" about their edits... well, that is clearly not the intention behind the way discretionary sanctions are supposed to work! (It can't be, because that would be astoundingly stupid!)

Rules are meant to be used intelligently and not just applied blindly, and just because a rule might say an editor can be blocked, that does not mean they should be blocked. Discretionary sanctions are intended to provide a means to handle contentious topics and quickly deal with troublemakers, and should not be misused to clobber innocent newbies. I'd expect any admin worthy of the role to see that difference, and if they make a mistake, to see the mistake when there's a clear consensus pointing it out to them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that I agree completely with Newyorkbrad in his continuing comments above. It was an obviously bad block (and I've rarely seen one more obviously bad), except for the blocking admin there was an otherwise unanimous consensus to overturn it, and I'm amazed that there are people here suggesting that the unblocking admin was wrong to unblock. Brad's comment that "Presumptions in favor of upholding AE actions and consensus requirements for overturning them should not be taken to extremes; nor, as I argued in lonely dissent multiple times when I was on the Committee, should inflexibility and automatic actions ever be written into the ArbCom's procedures and norms" is so obviously right that I'm shocked that he even needs to say it. And I'm seriously disappointed that the current ArbCom seems to have their heads so seriously buried in the rules that they apparently can't see the bloody obvious even when it's biting them in the bum. I voted for (most of) the current committee because I expected them to be able to offer intelligent and flexible judgment, not to behave like a bunch of rule-reading bots. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish[edit]

An editnotice or DS banner should be considered sufficient notice for anyone editing the page (they can't miss it). A page-top banner (like those atop the talk pages of most any article subject to DS) should be considered sufficient notice for anyone editing the page in multiple sessions (i.e., they've had plenty of time to notice). Speaking in general, and thinking of an entirely different case: People who are long-time disruptors of, and among the most active editors at, a page with such banner, and obviously fully aware of the DS, have escaped DS enforcement multiple times because their personal user talk page didn't have a {{Ds/alert}} on it in the last 12 months.

It's utterly pointless rule-creep and bureaucracy to let this kind of system-gaming continue by bad-apples ruthlessly wikilawyering the WP:AC/DS wording, or because admins who'd like to issue a sanction aren't certain they can. (And in some cases they end up sanctioning only one side of a dispute, the one that doesn't have personal notice, instead of both when they deserved it; I've seen this end up with AN overturning their action as punitive and uneven-handed, which doesn't look good for the admin.) A further problem here is that we all know by now that actually leaving someone {{Ds/alert}} is uniformly perceived as a threat or WP:JERK move, and simply escalates already tense situations, with the result that fewer editors will leave the alerts, so more bad-actors will escape sanctions. I've been raising these problem for over two years now, and nothing over gets done about it. Please do something about it, finally.

I offer no opinion on whether Coffee's block action was evenhanded or an overreaction to the specific content in question, since I didn't observe it, and I don't want to get involved in inter-personal drama, only address the systematic WP:PROCESS problem of granting people exploitable loopholes to use for sanction-gaming. The point of this ARCA seems to be whether an admin can be punished/admonished for assuming that WP:BUREAU and WP:COMMONSENSE aren't magically inapplicable here and that sanction-gaming must be permitted if any interpretation of WP:AC/DS can seem to be bent to allow for it.

PS: I say that as someone whose comments in the RfC were hatted by Coffee until I revised them (and I didn't like it, and thought about citing WP:IAR for reasons clear from the RfC's talk page), so I'm not showing up as part of some kind of "protect Coffee!" fan club (nor am I all that irritated about it any more). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

While I haven't paid much attention to the Donald Trump page, when Coffee says that a "1RR restriction creates an issue wherein a drive-by editor can easily force the same issue when adding content that has not existed in the article before (as long as only one content editor is actively watching the article)", I find it extremely unlikely that that would ever be the case with the article for the candidate of one of the two main US presidential parties. Vandalism on those pages is usually reverted near-instantly, for instance. Obviously having something decided by revert-wars and the rules governing reverts is bad, but as a general rule I find hard to believe we'd end up in a situation where something glaringly bad (or, for that matter, remotely controversial) was added to such a high-profile article with only one person objecting.

Beyond that it's just common sense that a user isn't going to anticipate that adding a religion entry to the sidebar will get them immediately banned; as someone who hasn't been following discussions there, I had no idea it was remotely controversial myself. Requiring that new editors carefully assess the consensus on the talk page for every single edit prior to making it just doesn't seem reasonable to me. Things like that (where a well-meaning new user arrives at a controversial article and makes a change that goes against an established consensus without realizing that it's controversial) are part of the reason we have WP:BRD. Even in articles under discretionary sanctions, and even when the user has been informed of the sanctions, an instant block with no warning should be reserved for situations where the edit in question is so clearly controversial or drastic as to imply bad faith; putting that Trump's religion is Presbyterian in the infobox obviously just doesn't qualify. --Aquillion (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recuse – writing a statement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

My reading of WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts is that an edit notice doesn't meet the procedural warning requirements; as Stadscykel points out, the rules state that an editor is aware if they have "received an alert for the area of conflict", but then go on to define alerts as being valid only if "the standard template message [...] is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted". However, I know that past enforcement practices—and some of my colleagues—disagree with me on this point.
Having said that, I'm actually more interested in the content of the edit notice rather than its form. WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions allows administrators to impose "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content" (emphasis mine). My interpretation of this rule is that a restriction of this sort must define some specific content that cannot be added or removed, in sufficient detail that an editor can determine whether an edit they wish to make would breach the restriction. Consequently, I'm unconvinced that a blanket prohibition of "potentially contentious edits" is an acceptable form of discretionary sanction under this clause. Coffee, could you comment on your interpretation of this requirement and your rationale for imposing this particular sanction? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gerda Arendt: I'm questioning whether the page restriction is a valid one under the current rules for discretionary sanctions. Whether the edit in question actually violated that restriction is an entirely separate issue. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first off, I don't expect to be sanctioning anyone as a result of this particular incident. I am squarely in the MEGO camp on editnotices in general (in fact, I use a userscript to hide them), but there is precedent for treating them as sufficient warning; it's clear that there's ambiguity in the DS procedures that needs to be sorted out going forward. On review of this particular implementation I agree with Kirill that "potentially contentious edits" may be too vague to be a workable page restriction. If you've spent months deeply immersed in some particular wiki-problem, it may seem obvious what kinds of edits will fall into that category, but the audience for these notices is much wider than that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) @DHeyward: MEGO = My Eyes Glaze Over. I swear the dab page used to say that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
- It seems that agreement has been reached that the original wording of the editnotice was too vague and it has now been updated, which takes care of the immediate issue; however, there are still some underlying matters unresolved and it would seem awfully bureaucratic to demand a new request to address them (especially considering that the problems lie in procedural bureaucracy :) As Wordsmith says above, the open procedural questions are: 1) is an editnotice sufficient warning for DS sanctions? and 2) should even obviously misguided AE actions prompt desysopping as a consequence for reversal? I'm uncertain on 1 - there are circumstances where it's impractical to individually warn every participant. I'd prefer to allow editnotices to be used as warnings, with the strong expectation that they will be used sparingly - perhaps only outside of articlespace, under the assumption that people participating in complex internal wikiprocesses are generally familiar with the system. Certainly I think NYB is correct to recommend emphasizing that blocks should be a last resort, not an automatic reaction to an evidently good-faith edit that happens to break the rules.
  On the other hand, I'm very certain on 2: it's no secret that I strongly dislike the "AE tripwire" effect and absolutely do not think there is any benefit to trying to double down on it for future similar situations as a consequence of this request. It doesn't work as intended to reduce drama and overreaction or to support the efforts of admins working in difficult areas - compare this slow-moving and generally calm procedural discussion with the hypothetical situation in which a rush of arbs had voted in a Level II desysop. Again, I'm not sure we need a procedural change so much as a change in social expectations: if your AE action gets reverted, do what Coffee wisely did and take a couple of days off and then come to ARCA to work out how to fix whatever the misunderstanding was. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  I had an old tab open when I wrote this, and I see Callanecc has made this edit regarding enforcement actions, which I can't contest as a matter of procedural validity - that is indeed an accurate description of what was decided last year - but I strongly disagree with its substance. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - On editnotices: The Wordsmith, that's a good idea about the talk namespace, and article+talk vs projectspace captures most of the intended distinction. Newyorkbrad, I take it that you think a direct personal notification is always preferable to a general notice, but I'm not sure I agree; as far as I can tell most experienced editors hate these things. There's almost no way a template on your talk page, no matter how neutrally and blandly worded, doesn't feel targeted toward you. A general notice risks being overlooked but also avoids annoying people who are already working in a difficult area. If delivering notices for article and talk space edits is chewing up too much scarce admin time, then it sounds like the solution is either to actively solicit more admin help in AE/DS, or to leverage what we have with more effective technical support. (Maybe a bot could deliver the talk-page alerts to those who edit particular pages for the first time and haven't been warned?)
  - On reversal of AE sanctions: After a year of opportunities, this is the set of facts that prompts us to draw a line under AE1, instead of reconsidering that conclusion? OK, this time through the wringer went: Good-faith but undesirable edit, good-faith but undesirable block, quick unblock, everyone heads over to ARCA to sort shit out, compromise reached (though I guess it still needs some wordsmithing). Next time it'll be: Edit, block, unblock, ZOMG AE REVERSAL LEVEL II DEFCON 1!!!!11, desysop, angry ANI thread where someone gets blocked for incivility, edit war over closure of ANI thread, case request, 50+ pissed-off preliminary statements from various partisans, 6-week case, desysopped admin retires, blocked editor says "fuck this" and leaves, case closes, someone posts youtube link to Eric Cartman compilation video in post-decision ACN thread and gets blocked for ~~disrespecting our authoritah~~ copyvio. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we shouldn't be sanctioning anyone. So far as I'm concerned, practice is that talk page notices and edit notices are sufficient, and if our documentation is confusing or suggests otherwise then we should do something about it. This could be to change practice (but not to suggest that enforcement of such notices in the past was wrong) or to change policy/documentation as appropriate. "Potentially contentious" is a problem and I'd have to be convinced that such wording is useful and enforceable. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Coffee: Looks like we are getting somewhere, hopefully more of my colleagues will be around soon to comment. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation would be that Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator implies that an alert does not need to be left on an editor's talk page and that an editnotice is enough when the admin is enforcing the edit notice. However, in this instance, I tend to agree with Kirill that prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content refers to "some specific content that cannot be added or removed" rather than broad restrictions on "potentially contentious edits". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Coffee: Sounds like full protection, but one that allows anyone to make uncontroversial edits? I don't actually think something like this is covered by the current DS procedure. The issue would be with a sanction like this is that what is and is not "contentious" is ambiguous and subjective so it's difficult to expect editors to know what it is and what isn't. You could impose a different revert restriction which enforces WP:BRD? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Coffee: Sounds good to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Coffee: If you're happy to implement that we can probably close this request as it will resolve the underlying issue? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Wordsmith: I've clarified the point presumption of validity in the procedure. Talking on arbcom-l about the editnotice one at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Wordsmith: Catching up. A sentence stating that "Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}})." was added in May 2014. Isn't that enough? Talking about the other issue, note that we already have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement#Presumption of validity Doug Weller talk 15:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The minutia matter, but not as much as the spirit of discretionary sanctions, which are a means to an end, not a trap. I happily admit that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and that I have to remind myself of all the procedures and notifications and logs and whatnot--never mind the scope of any action and the procedure of possible appeal or redress--every single time I run into a AC/DS issue. I thank Newyorkbrad for his comment, and Boing for expressing his frustration in a harsh but well-intended matter. No one should be blocked before being talked to, except in overt cases of vandalism and etc. A poor decision should be able to be overturned in a timely manner. In this case, that discussion took place and a consensus was clear.
So, to the point and all that--I suppose the block did not formally break any of our procedures, and I also agree that an edit notice should be enough. But that a block can be made from the point of view of some procedure doesn't mean everything. Good-faith editors editing in contentious articles who may not be completely aware of all the ins and outs shouldn't be blocked just because they can be blocked. Frequently, as in this case, it requires some serious background information to decide if something is contentious or not, to which extent simple factual verification isn't enough, how certain biographical facts are to be weighed. I would like for more administrators to check in regularly with sanctioned areas to see if they can help--not by notifying and logging and blocking and all that, but by talking to editors. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding that I also agree with Newyorkbrad's comment that "The question is whether editors who are acting in good faith and have no idea they are doing anything wrong should, absent extraordinary circumstances, be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule and told how they can comply with it going forward. The answer is that they should not." I've certainly reminded editors that they've done things that broke the sanctions and asked them not to do it again, rather than blocked them. Doesn't always work of course but that's ok, if it doesn't work then they can be sanctioned. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sanctions of AE a should never be used without full warning. I interpret full warning as requiring a page notice if a particular page is involved, and an individual notice. They're not a first line of defense, but something exceptional to deal with people who can not otherwise be restrained, and nobody should be presumed to know that they exist unless they have been warned. As an admin, I never dealt with AE basically because I did not myself want to become involved in what I regarded as potentially an extremely unfair procedure. Now that I am on arb com I realize the necessity of some procedure of this sort, but I still think they need to be used with every reasonable effort to alleviate their unfairness. If our current rules do not make this clear, they need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:57, 10 July 2016‎

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request (October 2016)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Elvey at 03:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Elvey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29

Amend the case to define, directly, or by reference, what the "standard discretionary sanctions" that it imposes are.

Statement by Elvey[edit]

Neither the case, nor Wikipedia:AC/DS, to which "standard discretionary sanctions" ("SDS") is sometimes linked, defines what SDS are. (This is particularly important given that, apparently, they change over time.)

If it means this, it needs to say so:

{{Ds/editnotice|must not make more than [[WP:1RR|one revert per 24 hours to this article]], must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] on the talk page of this article|topic=ap}}

(And if so, a standard template (that can be edited when the definition of SDS changes) would be a good idea, say, {{DS/SDS-editnotice}}, rather than bespoke ones, which should be deprecated.)

Doug & User:Guerillero: obviously, I'm aware of the Wikipedia:AC/DS page, as I linked to it in my comment above. You say standard discretionary sanctions refers to Wikipedia:AC/DS but, again :the case doesn't say that, or link there from Wikipedia:ARBAPDS. And the page doesn't have a section that defines what standard discretionary sanctions is/are either. I've since reread the page and do find that I can suss out multiple possible meaning, but I have to read and combine disparate parts of the page thousands of words apart to even get that far! There's no single section of the page that defines what standard discretionary sanctions is/are; if there is one, I challenge anyone to quote it to us here and to link WP:standard discretionary sanctions to point to that section! (Then, the case could be amended to make "standard discretionary sanctions" link there from Wikipedia:ARBAPDS, thereby resolving this request.)

It's particularly confusing that "standard discretionary sanctions" are a misnomer; they aren't standard; they vary!

Since opening this request for amendment, I've realised three things:

1.: that the sanctions vary; sometimes they mean a)what the above notice says, sometimes they mean what b)WP:AC/DS#guide.expect says, sometimes they mean c) TBD, and sometimes they mean d)what the below notice says :

{{2016 US Election AE}}

2.: The lack of clarity such notices creates, and what SDS are has already been discussed here and there's no consensus that such such notices provide adequate notice of the threatened sanctions they purport to impose, though that's a separate issue, and ArbCom's already decided they provide adequate notice.

3.: In areas under standard discretionary sanctions, admins can not only decide on their own to enforce the rules, admins decide on their own to define what the rules are, on a per-article basis, for particular politicians of their choice (according to one definition of SDS, anyway)! These rule variations leave some articles far more vulnerable to censorship and others far more vulnerable to unsubstantiated smears. There's no neutrality; some are more equal than others. And the mechanism that perpetuates the bias is not in plain sight. I wonder if ArbCom's wants to un-make what's called there a "minefield".

Case cloased, eh?

I take it from Guerillero's edit, which is appreciated, that this only applies to some articles under SDS in American politics:

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)!

On other articles under SDS in American politics, one can reinstate edits that have been challenged (via reversion) without obtaining consensus on the talk page. At least WP:3RR applies, presumably.

I'm surprised that's ArbCom considers some presidential candidates more equal than others, but so be it. The ArbCom position remains unclear and very fragmented. I guess I'll have to seek clarity elsewhere; as this page - ARCA - seems NOT to be the place to obtain clarification. :-( Maybe I'm just not wanting to see a position that doesn't makes sense to me as nonetheless being the position.

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Standard discretionary sanctions refers to Wikipedia:AC/DS --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is linked in the template. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wrote this thing with User:Courcelles. "standard discretionary sanctions" means Wikipedia:AC/DS. I added a link as a clerical change. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Guerillero, now that it's linked (which is obviously what it is referring to) this request can be closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks and we can close. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks. Looks like we're done here. Courcelles (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original issue has been resolved. We address disruption if and when it comes. If this makes us appear to be showing more equalism (not even sure how to define that), then all of Wikipedia does. We page protect some BLPs, does that mean we are more equal or unfair to them? No. We prevent the disruption and don't take preemptive action just as is outlined in the principle of the block and protection policies. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request (November 2016)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by KINGOFTO at 21:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC) WITHDRAWN by KINGOFTO (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

WITHDRAWN by KINGOFTO (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

KINGOFTO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)WITHDRAWN by KINGOFTO (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Bishonen

Information about amendment request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KINGOFTO&diff=747365466&oldid=747036782

WITHDRAWN by KINGOFTO (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KINGOFTO[edit]

WITHDRAWN by KINGOFTO (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen[edit]

Statement by L235[edit]

I'm uninvolved in this, but as I looked deeper, I felt compelled to recuse and write a statement. @KINGOFTO: You were asked time and time again not to reinstate the tags. In fact, you were explicitly informed that you may not reinstate contested edits and of the contents of the editnotice (which is always visible when editing the page) you claim you didn't see – and responded to that. And then, in yet another violation of the DS-authorized editnotice-displayed page sanction, you made the exact edit you were asked not to and that has absolutely no consensus. Under those circumstances, Bishonen was rather restrained in only banning you from Donald Trump, and this ARCA request was very ill-advised. Respectfully, you'll be lucky to scoot off without more sanctions.

The amendment request should be summarily declined if it isn't withdrawn quickly by KINGOFTO. Respectfully, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS[edit]

It's pretty clear that KINGOFTO must have seen the edit notice on Donald Trump so can't claim to be unaware of discretionary sanctions. Combine that with the number of times KINGOFTO had been told that the NPOV tag had no consensus - Discretionary sanctions alerts on the user talk page contains a clear example - and the addition of that tag by KINGOFTO couldn't fail to attract a sanction. 'Shonen was quite right to impose an indefinite topic ban from Donald Trump topics, in my humble opinion. As there's no evidence that KINGOFTO has learned anything from the sanction, there really is no argument for removing it.

The other question is whether a user can waste other editors' time at this venue without WP:BOOMERANG applying. I'm generally loathe to see anything that would discourage editors from seeking redress from ArbCom, but in this case I'm willing to make an exception. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

I am retitling this to American politics 2 per convention. @KINGOFTO: In ARCAs and other arbitration proceedings, you are required to notify other parties, including Bishonen; I'm doing so now for you as a courtesy. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having now read the context more, I will recuse as a clerk to give a statement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

@KINGOFTO: Do you want to withdraw this now? I certainly don't see any reason to overturn the sanction or even at this moment to limit it. So a definite decline from me and the hope that you will walk softly in regard to other articles relating to American politics or BLPs any further transgressions there will almost certainly result in an expanded sanction. Good behavior coupled with a considerable reduction in the political tension in America will make it easier to revisit your ban. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Doug says. I do not see how this should be modified or overturned based on the evidence given. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: American politics 2 (April 2017)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by ResultingConstant at 15:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

ResultingConstant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by ResultingConstant[edit]

Does the WP:ARBAPDS DS covering "post-1932 politics of the US" cover only narrowly "politics" (eg, politicians, laws, elections, etc) or more broadly, all events/movements which had political impact (for example, gun violence, race relations, LGBT issues, etc)

Specifically, I am raising this clarification request, because I just gave a DS alert to someone regarding Emmett Till, regarding an ongoing RFC and an ongoing (mostly acceptable) dispute/debate regarding the lead. But after giving the alert, I realized it is ambiguous as to if the Till article would actually be subject to the AP DS or not.

I can see strong arguments in either direction, certainly many of the "broad" topics had very great impacts on politics and had very obvious political linkages, but a broad interpretation risks putting basically all of US history, culture, current events etc under DS, as almost everything had some political impacts.

Per the "Collect" case, it would seem there is some precedent for the "broad" interpretation : Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others This case is focused on a broad topic and will examine allegations of misconduct within the American Politics topic, which – for the purposes of this case – also includes the Tea Party Movement topic and any United States-related overlaps with the Gun Control topic.

I am not linking the target of the alert here, because I don't consider them a "party" to an issue as of yet, as I am just asking for clarification, but if I need to link them, please let me know ResultingConstant (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: Personally, I would be exceptionally surprised to find breitbart not covered by DS, as they are a media outlet which so heavily political in coverage (and the meta-coverage aimed back at it). But such an example doesn't really go towards answering the crux of my clarification request I think ResultingConstant (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I agree that there is no issue at the Till article currently. The alert was given to a user with limited edit history, who looked like they were making the auto-confirmed race, who unilaterally made a change to the lead while an RFC on that issue was in process. That tripped my SPI/Troll radar. However, after the alert they engaged on the RFC as normal without issue, so it seems like a false alarm on my part. I think the much greater issue is how are editors/admins supposed to know what is or isn't under DS. Under the older AP case, things were not under DS, but they could be brought under DS by AE. Under the new system everything related to post 1932 politics is under DS, but which articles this actually covers (like Till/Breitbart), subject to the opinion of any uninvolved admin? that seems like a system ripe for problems. As for my particular request here, Im not sure the specific answer really matters, but the way of knowing what that answer is, does matter. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I undersand the problem. The difficulty is that trying to maintain a list of every possible page is not practical, and placing notices of every possibly affected talk page will have a chilling effect on editors. The one place we do that for is BLP, and that is of so long standing & expresses directly a fundamental policy, that experienced editors are aware as a matter of course, and for new editors, the caution is appropriate.I agree that an overbearing admin in this area could potentially be quite a problem, but I see no way of dealing with that in advance that would not cause similar difficulties. The entire DS system is a very tricky balance, relying more upon judgment than most other things here. (The only thing that keeps me from proposing a total replacement is my inability to devise anything that might be better.) DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

It seems obvious (to me at least) that page would need to have some disruption that would benefit from discretionary sanctions. Once that has occurred, I thought the admin moderating the disruption would place the page under DS and log it as a discretionary sanction. I've seen pages where editors have randomly placed the banner but absent an admin logging the page, it's not under DS. For an AP2 page sanction, I'd expect the admin logging the page to point to the discussion that was unproductive, intransigent or disruptive and also about American Politics. No page is inherently covered by any sanction but many quickly demonstrate its necessity. The presumption should be that page does not need DS protection until proven otherwise and the connection to an arbcom case should be obvious from the nature of the disruption/dispute. --DHeyward (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

American_politics_2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

American_politics_2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Personally I've always taken "all pages related to" to mean "broadly construed", and thus emcompassing articles that are superficially only tangentially related to US politics, such as Breitbart News. I would welcome hearing the input of my colleagues as to just how broadly construed was intended here, however. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ResultingConstant: Probably not, but my initial comment was just me thinking aloud here, so to speak, based upon my relatively limited experiences so far with the APDS, which have been nearly entirely related to the United States elections, 2016. I'll come to more direct, firm conclusions addressing your request once I've heard what some of my fellow arbitrators and other members of the community have to say, because, as I said, I welcome their input. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ResultingConstant:, Ks0stm placed the AmPol ds notice on Breitbart News on December 4th last year. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This question is harder than it sounds! I have a really hard time conceiving of the Emmett Till article as not in the category of "pages related to US politics", and yet a lot of related or comparable subjects that seem at least as connected to US politics do not currently have an APDS banner, giving the impression that "yes" answer to this question would significantly broaden the scope in practice. Am I right on that? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been awhile since this got new comments, so I'll go ahead and post my somewhat reluctant conclusion that no, Emmett Till is not so obviously related to American politics that it falls under the applicable DS. However, as NYB says, individual edits to the page may be sufficiently obviously related to American politics to warrant a warning/DS notice to the editor. While that may be unsatisfyingly squishy, if you suspect an admin has made an error in judging a particular edit as falling under DS on an article that otherwise doesn't, you can always ask for review at AE. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On pages that aren't entirely about American politics (or other subjects subject to DS), haven't we distinguished in the past between edits that relate to the subject under dispute, versus other edits? I think we have expressed caution in the past about overbroad interpretations of DS scopes that would cover half of the encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most topics dealing with the US are at least tangibly related to American politics, and so are many topics in the current and earlier affairs of other nations. I agree with NYB that the number might come to half of WP is measured in terms of extent of content, not number of articles. A very broad approach here is unworkable. But to put Breitbart under the sanction is in context reasonable. Emmett Till could affect contemporary NY politics also, but at present the discussion there does not seem to call for any sanctions or even warning. ----— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 14:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) on Donald Trump (August 2017)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Emir of Wikipedia at 16:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Emir of Wikipedia[edit]

Regarding WP:ARBAPDS on Talk:Donald Trump it says Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. At Talk:Donald Trump#False and misleading statements someone has said to me It's about reinstating an edit, not reinstating content. An edit cen be addition of content, removal of content, or change to content. In this case the edit was removal of content. That was challenged via reversion and you reinstated the removal without talk page consensus to do so Were they correct in saying this or was I correct regarding my reversion? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Thanks for the clarification and I apologize for my mistake. Could it be possible to change the wording to make sure that this confusion does not happen again in the future? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: If their is no better way to word it then we'll have keep to the current wording, but I think that some lenience should perhaps be given if someone else makes this honest mistake. I am grateful for your assistance and am happy for you to close this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtis: It was the title of the subsection at WP:ARBAPDS. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: If you could think of an amendment that could be made to resolve this possible confusion in the future I would be grateful, but otherwise I am happy for it to be closed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: In that case I am happy for it to be closed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley[edit]

The other editor is correct. Removal of long-standing content is an edit, not a revert. ~Awilley (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: I'm not sure how it would be clarified without bogging it down in detail. Adding the terse clarification in my previous post would then spark arguments about what constitutes "long-standing". And in practice it is sometimes convenient for admins to treat removal of content as a revert, as when blocking clearly disruptive editors reported to WP:AN/EW for edit warring. I suspect that is part of why there is disagreement even among admins as to what constitutes a revert. ~Awilley (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: As the OP you're probably in a better position to close this yourself if you're satisfied with my rationale. I'm not an arb, and I have edited the Donald Trump article recently enough to be considered "involved" by some. I'm also not a "regular" at this noticeboard. ~Awilley (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtis: The relevant arbitration case imposed discretionary sanctions for all articles "related to post-1932 politics of the United States" which includes the Donald Trump article :-) ~Awilley (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis[edit]

A 1932 cut-off for Donald Trump? Are we talking about the man himself or the ancient prophecy surrounding his birth? Kurtis ^(talk) 22:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley and Emir of Wikipedia: Ah, okay. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. :) Kurtis ^(talk) 03:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) on Donald Trump: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) on Donald Trump: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

It looks like the requested clarification has been provided. Is there anything for us to do here or should this be closed? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the wide number of situations that fall within WP:ARBAPDS, I would hesitate to change it to address this singular issue and potentially affect hundreds of others. It's better for ARCA or AE to handle rare one off situations for clarifications and actions as needed. Mkdw ^talk 16:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: American politics 2 (November 2017)[edit]

Withdrawn by filer. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Kingsindian at 10:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Kingsindian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification Coffee] -- see below
diff of notification The Wordsmith

Information about amendment request

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

Rescinded. The provision can be applied for individual pages at admin discretion, but is not part of the template.

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. The normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

[To clarify, I have included The Wordsmith as a party because they have in the past acted as a steward for Coffee's administrative actions.]

I am not sure this is the right venue, but I think it is. I am here seeking a relatively narrow amendment. The situation is as follows:

In May 2016, Coffee created a template (linked above) which is used on more than 100 pages dealing with American politics. The template includes a "consensus required" provision: challenged material should not be restored unless it has consensus.

The template has been used in the past as a "default" template for American politics topics. For instance, Ks0stm says here: FWIW, I only placed the article under 1RR/consensus required because that was what came packaged in 2016 US Election AE [template]; it wasn't so much an explicit decision to make it consensus required.
Some admins do indeed explicitly want to enforce the "consensus required" provision. See the AE request here, and the comment by TonyBallioni.
The value of the provision is, let's say, contested. I can give my own view here, to make it clear where I'm coming from: it's a very bad idea.

I propose that the template to be used as the "default" for post-1932 American elections contain the amendment I proposed. The amendment is modeled on the solution used in ARBPIA, and takes care of a very common justification for the "consensus required" provision (see TonyBallioni's comment linked above, for instance). This is a much more lightweight, well-tested and clearer sanction. To be clear: individual pages may still have the "consensus required" provision placed on them. In this way, collateral damage from what I consider a bad provision will be minimized. If ArbCom wishes to make an explicit statement either way (either rescinding the consensus required provision altogether, or to affirm it to be the "default"), they can also do so.

The above text is self-sufficient. In the following, I make a case for the badness of the "consensus required" provision. People can skip it if they want.

"Consensus required" is bad (optional)[edit]

My argument hinges on two points. First, consensus on Wikipedia is mostly silent and implicit; indeed this is explicitly enshrined in policy. Second, any bureaucratic provision must prove its worth if it is to be imposed. I will now expand on each of the points.

How do people typically handle disputes on Wikipedia? Some person writes something, someone else objects, the first person rephrases, the second person is still unhappy, a third person rephrases it etc. Talk page discussions are also commonly made concrete (and sometimes productively cut short) by someone using an explicit phrasing on the article which all sides can live by. To be sure, this outcome can be achieved by a schematic discussion on the talk page: people writing out explicit phrasings on the talk page, opening RfCs, polling people, incorporating suggestions and so on. Indeed, I have done plenty of this sort of thing myself. But this requires a fair bit of work and co-ordination, and a degree of good faith which is often missing among participants in political areas. All I am saying here is that mandating such a work-intensive and time-intensive procedure is counterproductive. Existing rules are adequate to deal with long-term edit warring: indeed WP:ONUS is well-established policy.
The provision has never proved its worth, nor have its proponents given any measure by which its worth could be measured. Regardless of the claims of its proponents: of the provision being a "bright line" akin to 1RR, consensus in Wikipedia is often not a bright line. Besides, consensus can always change, based on new information. In practice, the provision has led to interminable and bad-tempered arguments (including, but not limited to, admins enforcing the provision), and essentially nothing else. For instance, in a recent AE complaint, even the person who brought the complaint under the provision thought that the provision is bad but, they said, since it exists they'll use it. Then come the retaliatory AE requests, making a reasonable argument: a dumb provision should at least be applied uniformly. This situation is, to put it mildly, not ideal. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: The instructions on the page state: Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement sanction issued by an administrator, such as through discretionary sanctions). Did I read them wrongly? By the way, this has already been discussed on AE, and the discussion didn't go anywhere. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Here, I am only asking for the "default" template to not carry the "consensus required" provision (and a simultaneous tweaking of the 1RR provision). If ArbCom (and admins at AE who may wish to weigh in here), feel that it ought to be dumped completely, that is also fine with me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: That would be unsatisfactory, because: (a) the 1RR tweak I described above would not be implemented, which is definitely not ideal and (b) the pages already tagged with the template wouldn't be changed. If these two aspects are addressed, I would have no objection.

In general, I will wait for a few more comments from Arbs; if they feel that AE is the best venue, I'll withdraw this and refile there. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coffee[edit]

Statement by The Wordsmith[edit]

Statement by BU Rob13[edit]

I agree that this should be at WP:AE. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by L235[edit]

The main problem here appears to be that the template containing the "consensus required" provision is the only one available for administrators to use for ARBAP2 sanctions. However, there is no decision by ArbCom mandating the use of the "consensus required" provision or that template. @Kingsindian: Would it resolve your request if I created an ARBAP2 talk notice template that did not include the "consensus required" provision? (Perhaps this template could also have "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert.") That way, administrators could still make the conscious choice to choose to use that provision on a case-by-case basis, but documentation should note that the other template is also available. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recuse in order to give statement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

@Kingsindian: This looks like something which would be better at WP:AE. The Arbitration Committee will generally only intervene in arbitration enforcement decisions where there has been an abuse of process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct that AE decisions can be appealed here, however traditionally ArbCom has only decided to intervene when AE admins haven't followed the rules. To clarify are you asking that the Committee remove the consensus required sanction completely? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, that's what I thought. As I said, I suspect you won't get much from ArbCom, but I could be wrong. I still think, though, that this would be better placed at AE for another discussion (which hopefully will end with action this time). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Coffee or The Wordsmith have anything additional comments, I would also be inclined to suggest WP:AE as a better venue. It would probably be handled more directly. Mkdw ^talk 21:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: American politics 2 (January 2018)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by SlimVirgin at 23:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

WP:ARBAPDS
Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Information about amendment request

WP:ARBAPDS

State the desired modification

Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

State the desired modification

Statement by SlimVirgin[edit]

I don't know whether I've filled in the template properly or whether this is the right page. This is a request about AE and Sandstein, not about a particular case. Sandstein has just closed an AE against MONGO with a three-month topic ban "from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". He did this not because MONGO had been disruptive in the content area, but because he had posted a few angry posts at AE in response to a request for action against DHeyward. The topic ban seems to me to be a category mistake. As a result of it, MONGO has retired.

There was no consensus for the ban among uninvolved admins, but Sandstein closed the discussion anyway after less than 24 hours. When I objected as an uninvolved admin by posting underneath the closed discussion as soon as I saw it (rather than reopening it), he removed my post, and when I restored it, he told me that I "may be sanctioned for disruption".

What can be done about this situation at AE, which seems to have been going on forever, that Sandstein can simply ignore the views of other uninvolved admins? I'm posting here because he has refused all requests to reopen the discussion at AE. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the admins who commented at the AE: @Vanamonde93, NeilN, Drmies, Bishonen, Black Kite, Alex Shih, BU Rob13, and Masem: SarahSV ^(talk) 23:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions: Sandstein talk, SV talk, AE talk, Sandstein talk again.

Volunteer Marek, I asked you elsewhere to post examples of admins (other than Sandstein) who overrule the consensus of uninvolved admins at AE. Please post examples.

Yes, discretionary sanctions allow admins to take action without consensus, but this is nothing new. We can block and protect without consensus, and we imposed topic bans without consensus—instead of blocking or protecting—years before discretionary sanctions were a twinkle in ArbCom's eye. But there is a big difference between that and ignoring consensus once it has formed, or jumping the gun and closing a discussion as it is forming. Admins should not do that, at AE or anywhere else. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, this isn't an appeal, it's an objection to the AE discussion being closed by one admin less than 24 hours after it opened while other admins were still discussing it. (I wish we could drop the legalistic approach to these discussions, as in only this type of person that can do that type of thing, etc.) This is an objection to a system that seems to allow one admin to do whatever he wants, no matter what anyone else says. Is he allowed to overrule ten uninvolved admins, 50, 500? What is ArbCom's view on the role of consensus among uninvolved admins at AE? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, it's worth adding that I encourage you to appeal the topic ban, and I assume you can do that here in your own section if you want to. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I wrote the above before reading Newyorkbrad's post, which I hope MONGO will consider. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When Sandstein lifted the topic ban, he issued a threat to take action against MONGO again: "If you repeat such conduct, I intend to impose a indefinite topic ban and/or a block." This is not appropriate. MONGO should not have to edit under the cloud of Sandstein deciding that a remark of his violates something, especially when it might lead to a topic ban in an unrelated area. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

~~I am not curently able to comment in detail but will be able to do so in the morning by UTC. Sandstein 23:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

This is an appeal of an AE sanction by somebody who is not the sanctioned editor. Such appeals are not allowed according to ArbCom procedure. Multiple people have told SlimVirgin this on her talk page and on the AE talk page. That she nonetheless submits this appeal here, five minutes after reading MONGO's statement that they do not wish to appeal, is disruptive.

SlimVirgin's conduct at WP:AE, where she reverted my removal of her request to discuss the case from the AE page was likewise disruptive. AE is a forum in which to process enforcement requests and not to discuss past enforcement actions; such discussions belong on talk pages or in other discussion fora, as, again, multiple other editors have told her. Intentional breaches of decorum are sanctionable, to which I made reference. As an administrator, SlimVirgin in particular should know and follow AE procedure. I agree with BU Rob13 below that her conduct in this matter can be read as attempting to bully me into changing an AE decision she does not agree with.

I have addressed SlimVirgin's procedural concerns with respect to the closure on her talk page, and to some extent on my talk page and on the AE talk page. I explained there that I believe that I have followed all rules regarding the conduct of sanctioning administrators as laid down in ArbCom's procedures. I remain available for questions by arbitrators if they desire further clarification in this respect. Because this appeal is out of order, as noted above, I do not intend to comment on the merits of the sanction here, unless requested to by arbitrators. Sandstein 07:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Because the original appeal by SlimVirgin is, as you write, improper, the Arbitration Committee should not consider it. If AE is to function in a effective and predictable manner, editors and administrators need to be able to rely on the Arbitration Committee applying the rules it has enacted. This case is an example for why the rule against third-party appeals makes sense: SlimVirgin's request has, against MONGO's wishes, highlighted MONGO's misconduct in a public forum and caused them additional stress, to say nothing of the administrative overhead for everyone involved. SlimVirgin should at the least be admonished not to disrupt the process again in this manner.

If this were a valid appeal, I would also disagree with the alternative sanctions you propose. I believe that no sanction should ever include a prohibition against personal attacks. That's because such a prohibition already applies to all editors per WP:NPA and indeed the Terms of Use. Issuing a separate prohibition misleadingly implies that it does not already applies to everybody. I'd also be skeptical of exchanging a topic ban for a longer AE ban. The misconduct at issue was triggered by frustration about perceived discrimination of editors with conservative views with respect to US politics. This is a motivation not specific to AE but could just as well result in similar misconduct in article talk page discussions about US politics. A topic ban is therefore a more appropriate instrument to prevent future misconduct.

We do now have a valid appeal by MONGO, however. I'll comment on it at a later time, as I have to go to work now. Sandstein 07:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the appeal by MONGO, if it had been made to me directly, I'd likely have granted it and lifted the topic ban. I believe that sanctions should be lifted as soon as they are no longer necessary. In almost all cases, that requires that the sanctioned user convincingly expresses that they understand why what they did was wrong and that they won't do it again. I believe that MONGO is sincere when they say that they regret the statements they made. For these reasons, I'm not opposed to the Arbitration Committee lifting the topic ban on appeal. However, if such conduct is repeated in a discretionary sanctions topic area and is brought to AE again, I will consider imposing an indefinite topic ban. Sandstein 08:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: You suggest that I lift the ban myself. My understanding is - perhaps out of caution - that once ArbCom is seized of an appeal, they are in charge of the procedure and the sanction, and I cannot therefore lift or modify the sanction on my own any more. (If the appealing editor had wanted me to do this, they could have appealed to me rather than to ARCA.) If this understanding of procedure is incorrect, i suggest that procedure is clarified accordingly.

As to the 24h waiting period at AE, if you do this you should take into account that AE actions undertaken by admins on their own without a request, or in response to requests in fora other than AE, would not have this waiting period. Potentially controversial AE actions would then be perhaps more often be made through these other venues. If you don't want to authorize admins to act on their own without prior discussion, that is fine with me, but then you'd need to fundamentally rethink the whole AE process. In my view, this is a solution in search of a problem, because if there is controversy over an AE action, then the point at which it can be resolved through discussion and consensus is the appeals process, and not any very vaguely described pre-sanction discussion. Sandstein 13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators, thank you for your responses. I currently read 4 arbitrators as confirming that I as sanctioning admin am authorized to lift the sanction while this appeal before the Committee remains pending. I intend to do so as soon as a majority of active arbitrators (i.e., 7) has confirmed this view. I do not intend to substitute it with a NPA restriction, because as explained I consider such restrictions harmful, or with an AE ban, because as long as they do not make personal attacks there is no particular need to exclude MONGO from AE. Of course, other admins remain free to take such other enforcement actions as they see fit. Sandstein 14:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I'll lift the ban as soon as MONGO's talk page is unprotected so I may post the appropriate notice (see User talk:Bishonen#User talk:MONGO). Sandstein 07:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now lifted the ban and noted this on MONGO's talk page and the sanctions log. Sandstein 11:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO[edit]

I just commented here and am not able due to a horrible migraine to do more today. In summary my linked comment states that I am not planning on submitting a formal request for modification of my topic ban at this time, due to the probability of creating a dramafest and possibly angering some I have deeply and needlessly offended.--MONGO 23:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see SlimVirgin's approach to this matter as bullying as described above by Sandstein. My take is SlimVirgin felt that the discussion was closed down before a consensus was established and the AE request was open less than a day when there was no editing on my part in the topic area, so a rapid closure was unnecessary. In other words, SlimVirgin seems to indicate that by time she noticed the AE request, it was already closed and she was not able to offer an opinion on the matter. The other point that SlimVirgin has pointed out is that the applied remedy was incorrect as I had not been disruptive in the topic space itself, but instead at the AE noticeboard. The original arbcom admonishment I received 2.5 years ago in the American Politics 2 case stated I had added "hostility to the topic area" [60] and I believe Sandstein was considering my comments at the just closed AE request against DHeyward to be a further example of the things I had been admonished for in the American Politics 2 case.--MONGO 08:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is now essentially an appeal on my part. Hoping this does not lead to excessive drama as I am not up to it and have determined that if the appeal is not successful, I'm taking at least a sabbatical from the English Wikipedia (I never seem to get myself in trouble at Commons so I might try and help there I guess) for the duration of the existing topic ban. Anyway, I saw that long time editing partner DHeyward had been reported to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. I looked over the diffs provided and I felt they were possibly violations but only barely if at all. One in fact struck me as odd in that it was on the last day of his existing 30 day topic ban and I know DHeyward well enough that he's not so stupid he would tempt fate on his last day of an existing topic ban. After I received a well deserved admonishment from the arbitration committee in 2015 I had in essence retired mostly from US political articles, sticking my nose in there only very infrequently and my editing history will testify to that effect. But I have noticed a lot of the same people reporting each other it seemed doing a tit for tat (I felt) at AE with the same names popping up frequently. Seeing some of the comments I lashed out at DHeyward's detractors, both present and not even present at that discussion here. I'll frankly say I am embarrassed by the comment I made there and would go so far as to say it was blockworthy, even a longish block, especially since MrX removed part of it, reminded me to not make personal attacks [61] and I yet restored it [62]. There is no excuse for the comments I made, they were extremely harsh and unnecessary. MrX and I had a sort back and forth and MrX then filed an AE request regarding my comments [63] and Sandstein then removed all my comment from the AE request on DHeyward [64] and then posted he was waiting for me to address the issue [65]. I did not initially respond to the report and in fact bluntly said I would not be responding. Sandstein then stated that he was considering a indefinite topic ban on me [66] from American politics etc. articles. The full discussion lasted about half a day [67] and those commenting ranged from being in agreement with Sandstein's proposal to suggesting that a different resolution should be applied, primarily based on the lack of diffs showing I have been disruptive in the topic space itself. Sandstein apparently did adjust the invoked sanction to a 90 day topic ban rather than the indefinite one he initially suggested. After posting to my talkpage about the sanction he had applied, I resigned. I intend to not edit anywhere until my topic ban is lifted, amended or expires. I have contemplated leaving because I feel I have lost the support of the community overall.

The above are the facts of the case, I was way out of line, I probably deserved a block for making personal attacks and restoring them after MrX had removed part of them, and Sandstein did not completely ignore the input of other administrators or the community.

Things moved rapidly during the AE report MrX had filed and in reflection I feel that while my comments were inexcusable I also felt that the both barrels loaded response by Sandstein, who posted a rather draconian indefinite topic ban plan, the type of ban that is oftentimes rarely amended or lifted, was inaccurate. Furthermore I felt very slighted by his comment in the same paragraph in which Sandstein said I have a long block log for "disruptive conduct". I asked Sandstein about this as I have not been blocked in nearly 10 years and others chimed in that my block log was well in the past. The harsh implied penalty as well as the bringing forth of my old blocks certainly indicated to me that Sandstein may have been angry at me or was working on a reputation I may have. These sorts of comments, posted very early in the discussion, have perhaps the inadvertent effect of setting the tone of the oncoming penalty, a sort of pragmatism that I know was not done in a calculated manner by Sandstein, but does impact how the discussion is likely to go. The rush to judgement should be metered and dispassionate and I will confess that I have found Sandstein to be overly aggressive and at times overly harsh in is application of sanctions. I want to say that I am literally fearful that anyone posting a complaint about me I may not get a fair hearing by Sandstein since he apparently has an entrenched and negative view of my activities. Perhaps this is a preposterous paranoia on my part especially considering I do not think Sandstein has ever previously sanctioned or suggested I be sanctioned. Nevertheless, his comments early on made me conclude I either have a terrible reputation or his opinion of me is very low. Both of these things make me feel like staying around this website is a bad plan for me.

I do have a few ideas if anyone cares to think about them:

1). Hereforth allow AE reports to remain open for 24 hours unless the reported party is doing harm to the project and a near immediate sanction must be implemented. 2). Tailor the sanction to better fit the offense. In my case, a 90-180 day NPA parole would have been better since I had not been seen to be disruptive in the topic area itself. I am opposed to civilty paroles because we do have some cultural/language barriers and one person's blunt speak may be anothers incivility. What I engaged in was beyond incivility, I made personal attacks so there is a clear distinction. I would prefer that my current sanction be changed to a NPA parole, but this isn't really a big deal to me because I have lost most of my desire to contribute. MrX somewhere said he felt my sanction was small considering I had admitted I rarely edit that topic area anymore anyway...he's probably right. 3). Admin working in AE and anywhere should remember that many nonadmins feel genuinely at the mercy of the admin corp. Having once been an admin I can attest to how losing the bit is a very marginalizing experience. I ask admins to understand that we do at times feel threatened and at times powerless and this does impact how we may respond (generally defensively but oftentimes angrily) when we are approached by administrators. Likewise when reminding people to be nice, expect them to not be since no one likes being told what to do. 4). All should only use the noticeboards as a last resort. Even when there may be clear and obvious diffs to provide, we should all try and give each other the benefit of the doubt if at all possible.

Thanks....--MONGO 06:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Quixotic Potato[edit]

It is no secret that I disagree with MONGO politically (see my userpage), but I think this topic ban is not helping our encyclopedia. Retired or not, I would like to see this topic ban undone. Sandstein acted in good faith and I understand Sandstein's reasoning, but I think it was a bad decision. Blocking for incivility would've been a good decision. There is no one here (at the time of this timestamp) that I fully agree with. Unfortunately asking people to calm down is usually counterproductive. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

You don't like how the AE report was closed? Well, tough noogies, that's the "discretionary" in "discretionary sanctions". And for the record there was in fact weak consensus for the restriction.

I actually find it hilarious that some editors (well, two, Sarah and Rambling Man) are acting like this is some nefarious breach of norms whereas this is exactly how WP:AE functions and has always functioned. There've been literally dozens if not hundreds of editors who've come through WP:AE who've been sanctioned (or not) with much less consensus than in this case. Again, that's the "discretionary" in "discretionary sanctions". WP:AE has always been like this. This is just clueless in the sense that Sarah apparently just discovered that WP:AE exists and "discretionary sanctions" are a thing. Even though, you know, they've been around for more than half a decade (and lots of admins, including some sitting on the ArbCom right now, have argued till they're blue in the face that they're effective).

You don't like this? Then get rid of WP:AE and discretionary sanctions. Riiiiggghhhhhthttttt....

Otherwise it's gonna look very much like MONGO is being given special treatment - what about all the other editors who got sanctioned with far less consensus over the years? - just cuz he's MONGO.

(Note that this is neither an endorsement nor a criticism of discretionary sanctions) (or MONGO's sanction for that matter)

Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX " If, alternatively, Arbcom intended that AE should be a IAR free for all where the loudest and most persistent voices win, then that that would be good to know as well.-" - I think that's called "WP:ANI" and it is my understanding that that's why an ArbCom came up with DS in the first place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: - Sarah, it's actually YOUR job to provide diffs to support your claim (the claim: "What can be done about this situation at AE, which seems to have been going on forever, that Sandstein can simply ignore the views of other uninvolved admins?)", not mine. Best I can see you provide nothing, just your own displeasure at how the MONGO report was closed. Sorry, but that's not enough for, well, anything, otherwise there's some AE decisions I'd like to re-litigate myself.

Also, just a general question - for the ArbCom as well - what EXACTLY is being asked for here? What is the clarification being requested? What is the amendment being proposed? There doesn't appear to be anything of the sort. Just a sanction-related version of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. In the most charitable interpretation this is a thinly disguised appeal on behalf of MONGO in contravention of Wikipedia policy (as I asked elsewhere, what exactly is the difference between an "appeal" of a sanction and a request to "review" a sanction on behalf of someone else?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: @MONGO: - I just want to point out that converting a AP topic ban into a civility parole (isn't making personal attacks *already* prohibited?) is not exactly doing MONGO any favors. With a topic ban, you more or less know what you need to do to not run afoul of it. But changing one's personality, or how it manifests itself in an online space... yeah, that's tricky. I mean, I've seen a few people do it, but generally, no. It just leads to more trouble. Chances are in a few weeks MONGO will say something snide (maybe not even THAT snide) to somebody in a completely different setting, that person will note that MONGO is under this civility parole and then go running to WP:AE.

This is sort of an offer you can't not refuse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given User:MONGO's statement - and the fact that it constitutes an actual appeal - I think the sanctions should be vacated or rescinded or whatever. Per my comment right above, substituting in a civility parole (again, "personal attack parole" makes no sense) is a bad idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX[edit]

I would very much like for the committee to review SlimVirgin's actions and comments over the past 12 hours to determine if they align with the policies and practices of arbitration enforcement, and the spirit of resolving conduct disputes on Wikipedia. Specifically, she has relentlessly hounded Sandstein as evidenced at WP:AE, WT:WT, user talk:Slim Virgin and user talk:Sandstein. She has insisted that Sandstein should pursue a consensus amongst admins, a demand which is in stark opposition to policy and practice. If, alternatively, Arbcom intended that AE should be a IAR free for all where the loudest and most persistent voices win, then that that would be good to know as well.- MrX 00:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I appreciate MONGO's statement, and I'm sincerely sorry to hear that he has a migraine. That really sucks.)

@RegentsPark: You wrote: The wise thing to do when your admin action is (almost universally) condemned is to reopen it and work toward a consensus solution rather than to quote policy and try to shut down debate. I'm not sure if that is intended to be hypothetical, but I assume it is your reflection of what happened in this case. Sandstein's actions were not almost universally condemned. They were not condemned by at least 12 editors: myself, Volunteer Marek, Drmies, BU Rob13, Huldra, Alanscottwalker, Black Kite, SPECIFICO, Mz7, NorthBySouthBaranof and Kingsindian. Alex Shih said he disagreed with the close, but did not indicate that he condemned Sandstein's actions. Masem seems to have reservations, but no outright condemnation.

That's roughly the same number of editors who have criticized Sandstein's actions, and a larger number than those who have actually condemned his actions. Please, anyone, let me know if I've misrepresented your comments on this matter.- MrX 16:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was over, but it seems that some folks don't know how to move on. The continued hounding of Sandstein is appalling and I'm bewildered that Arbcom continues to sit on its collective hands ignoring it. Haven't we had enough drama here for one week without proxy complaints on behalf of MONGO, who has, to his credit, moved on with grace.?- MrX 00:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BU Rob13[edit]

I’ve recused because of my minor involvement at the AE, but I do want to note my thoughts on this whole issue. First, the Committee should only hear an appeal from MONGO. Appeals on behalf of other editors are not policy-based. Further, some of the behavior surrounding this situation has been very subpar. I don’t know whether ARCA is the right place to take that up, but the threats Sandstein has been subjected to cannot be allowed to continue. Admins should not be bullied out of enforcing arbitration remedies. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Winkelvi[edit]

A few things I want to address:

Is there something in the collective water that Wikipedia admins are drinking lately - especially those with itchy trigger fingers who are younger in age and/or inexperienced at being admins? I'm asking only because there's some really bold and bad decisions being made lately in the way of long blocks and sanctions and it's all been by young admins and new admins. Sheesh.

It's no secret that MONGO and I have tussled in the past, and I have been vocal about his brash communication and aggressive edits over the last few years, but I can't help but voice my objection to what happened to him today. This sanction seems like some huge overkill and just more unneeded drahmuh.

It's totally uncool that Sandstein is ignoring the views of other uninvolved admins. It's even more uncool that he refused requests to reopen the case and is now saying he's going to suddenly become incommunicado and unavailable for the next 12 hours or so. Same thing happened with another young admin with a quick trigger-finger two weeks ago. What the...?

Sorry, but as the member of a community where we are supposed to have some level of trust in those essentially running the place, these kind of actions (just like the other two instances I mentioned here as well) leave a chilling effect, a bad taste in experienced editors' mouths, and is starting to chase away long time, experienced, and good content contributors. My opinion is something needs to be done about this new trend as well as MONGO's over-the-top sanction and dissing admins like SarahSV. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN[edit]

Sandstein states here, "In the instant case, I did read and take into consideration the opinions of others, even if I did not follow all of them. There being no consensus about the nature of the sanction to impose, the issue of overruling colleagues did not arise."

I see little evidence he read or took into consideration the opinions of other admins. This indicates he did not read the revised proposal, he either didn't read or ignored my nudge to address the revised proposal, and the close misrepresented the revised proposal as detailed here (the top part)
No consensus was allowed to form as Sandstein closed the case before even twenty four hours had passed. Bearing this in mind, his "no consensus" statement seems very self-serving. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, it shows he considered the initial proposal, which was easy to dismiss, not the revised one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, for the nth time (sorry, not directed towards you specifically) a "6th month ban on discussion" was not the proposal on the table. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the waiting time discussion, I'm going to repeat what I said here: An admin has the authority to levy sanctions on anyone without needing input or a post to the AE board. I wouldn't want to change this. However if a request is posted to the board and another admin disagrees with the first admin's proposal before the first admin takes action then I do think consensus should be necessary at that point. Expanding: Recognizing that this could lead to an impasse, any admin should be able to close the request 36 hours after it was opened with the appropriate explanatory notes. However if there is significant disagreement about sanctions and discussion is exhausted/getting repetitive, consideration should be given whether or not to kick it up to Arbcom. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker[edit]

Whether intentional or not Slim Virgin's presentation seems rather unfair and I think that unfairness stems from SV not dealing with the entirety of Sandstein's extensive rationale. So I present that rationale, here:

Taking into consideration the discussion above, we agree that this is actionable conduct, but some admins would prefer a sanction that reflects that there are no complaints with respect to MONGO's article-space editing. As noted above, I'm of the view that a sanction limited to non-articlespace is impractical and does not reflect that Wikipedia editing does not occur in segregated namespaces, but that casting aspersions against others affects all work that the affected editors undertake; for instance, it severely hinders the ability of the involved editors to work together and find consensus on content issues. I am therefore topic-banning MONGO from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. As regards the duration of the sanction, I must take into consideration, on the one hand, that MONGO has been admonished by ArbCom against such conduct and has a long block log, and that their immediate reaction to this request was to blame others and to disclaim responsibility; but, on the other hand, that no blocks are recent, and that MONGO has now apologized for their remarks. Accordingly, I'm imposing the topic ban for a duration of three months. Sandstein 09:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree or disagree, it extensively addresses why it was done, including what Slim Virgin calls a "category error". And contra Neil, yes it shows he considered others' statements. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, Your proposal for a 6th month ban on discussion (and do obvious, uncontrovertial maintenance) is addressed with a 3 month clean-break, does appear considered, above, both in shortening length and in similar relative effect/enforcement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Oh, right, you mean the, for lack of a better term, 'civility parole' thing that bans him saying certain things -- well, the Arbs do have recent relatively high-profile experience with that and they seemed rather disenchanted with it being pretty unenforceable, unlike the clean break, which was the reason the clean-break was chosen. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I am being called to say whether I "condemn" Sandstein's action, I don't. My position, is rather closer to Drmies, and Golden Ring. For myself, reading it all, I think Sandstein did honestly try 'to do the right thing' (even were it not what I would have done, were I in his shoes), and did generally try to take all the comments into account. I did not opine in the AE (I don't know if I ever have commented in that forum), and you don't need yet another, after the fact, opinion on the underlying facts. As for timing, again, your timing rules are whatever your timing rules are, but just looking at the AE discussion, itself, it does appear like it was aired out there by multiple people. As for appeal, you have whatever rules you have created. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to comments about AE 'not working', or 'it's broken' (like there's something that's not?) or 'why do we have AE?' - you'll just have to dig through the history to truly answer that but one thing that seems apparent to me, is the major answer to all those complaints already exists: appeal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: While I agree there is now an appeal and that Sandstein would now be inclined to grant in some form, you appear to send a 'mixed message', if what you are suggesting is Sandstein now act unilaterally (are you putting him in a situation, where to some, he 'gets it wrong' again?). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: They can be. But here and now, we have multiple people opining on different ideas for handling the matter. As I said, you send a mixed message. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: @DGG:, and to the rest of the Comittee, too. First of all, your burn it down remedy is bizarre, unless you are willing to go whole hog and disband your ctte or resign (after all, if you read the comments of many over the years, your ctte, does not do much, and when it does, it regularly does it wrong) or you can press ahead with the realization that nothing is perfect. I also, don't think sweeping infexible new creeping rules is wise.

My suggestions, 1) every year or six months as a ctte off-wiki audit every AE case for a week(s)/a month, (or have some of our statistcians give you a random sampling technique) after that time publish the draft audit (for structured community comment/your revision) hand out a bunch of 'attagals/boys/etc', and 'no's, this is how that kind should be handled', and overtime you'll have a 'common law' body of precedent, that everyone can look to. And in successive audits, you can refine/correct prior audits.

With cases such as the present one when you have an actual appeal, go ahead and make some rulings, even though as this one is, it's over (Brad I am sure there is a SCOTUS phrase for that) although, when it's over, you should probably be more circumspect, with your eye firmly planning on making future AE 'better', never perfect, but in the context of discussing an actual case issue that arose). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem[edit]

My opinion from the original AE was that MONGO's talk behavior was way out of line, considering past warnings/etc, but understanding from others they edit in AP2 space without any drama to the content of their edits. I do understand the point made by the closing, that it is hard to block talk page behavior and yet expect the editor to continue to participate in the same article space, if the TBAN prevents them from participating in any discussion, which my read now makes me think a TBAN might have been the wrong approach, or at least a shorter standard TBAN. --Masem (t) 00:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by olive[edit]

This is about process versus common sense. If an AE closes in less than 24 hours, chances are many aren't even aware the AE has been filed. If another or other admins ask that a case be reopened then nothing is lost by extending discussion. Wikipedia has unfortunately given a great deal of power to individual admins in the application of discretionary sanctions and in AEs. In a community of this size, that power can be misused and so must be must be tempered with the openness to listen to fellow admins and editors, and the flexibility to apply sanctions with discrimination knowing that nothing in our policies and guidelines points to rigid consistency. Wikipedia is and will continue to be open to abuse if individual admins cannot adjust their thinking and decisions based on the specifics of a situation. Admins must know that they will not be judged for changing their minds and that flexibility and collaboration will be respected.

And by the way that another admin questions a decision is good and healthy in this community. We don't want or need dictators which is what happens if decision makers are above discussion with those those who may disagree or misunderstand them.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

- There is a bottom line here: AE doesn't always work very well. Process should not override common sense and humane judgement. Admins like Sandstein are following the letter of the law and shouldn't be faulted for that but at the same time a single admin makes mistakes and sometimes big ones and sadly, sometimes editors are railroaded. Are there any admins here who feel they've always been right or fair? So like isaacl I believe we need to have a circuit breaker for those times when a community of admins sees a potential mistake. We are a collaborative community and that must refer not just to editing practices but also to judgement and decisions. The problem we have here is that Sandstein feels he has done the right thing. Others disagree and Sandstein is not interested in dealing with those other opinions. Fair enough for an admin to stand by his decisions. However, no admin should be in a position to implement something that is not fair or just in the eyes of a community. What we need is a formalized guide for such situations. In a collaborative community a single admin should be overridden by a group. How can that be implemented. Several months ago an editor emailed and asked me if I thought our AE process was making people sick. I've thought about that for along time. And in the end, yes, when people are treated unfairly, unjustly, especially in a community which purports to be collaborative, for me, a word synonymous with of the people, then we are making people sick and we are losing editors and we are responsible-all of us.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

- - Note: Among the "masses" appeals are generally considered to be useless.There seems to be a general sense that those appealing are guilty so why bother looking at the case in detail again, or there are those who want to make sure the sanction holds. If this seems cynical with a dash of hopelessness; it is. I speak from experience where for example I had an arb accuse me of something I'd never done. Had she looked at the case she wouldn't have made the mistake. When I asked for a clarification on the point I was ignored. So my sense is that do it right at AE, including a 24 hour, at the very least, time period on the case.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by TheGracefulSlick[edit]

Let me just start off by saying I respect Sandstein immensely for his ability to read consensus at AFD so I am saddened by recent events. However, when SlimVirgin dared to have an issue with your close, your response can be summed up as: "that sucks but procedure says I can". Your close was ill-adviced and caused a shootout among several esteemed editors. Can you honestly stand behind your closure and say the ends justify the means? What have you accomplished or proven because it certainly has not been in the interest of the encyclopedia, regardless of whether "procedure says I can" or not. And I share Littleolive's opinion: SlimVirgin's inquiry is healthy and I wish more admins had the moxy to speak up more often.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

I also object strongly to applying a content area ban to an editor that didn't involve the content. Sandstein closed my appeal and it was the draconian decision and hounding of me that led to his comments. I have an ARCA request below because of how admins working in AE are not communicating properly even after they admit errors in clarity. I am now subject to an AP2 topic ban because AE admins believe I violated a BLP topic ban. I don't think ArbCom intended to create a roulette wheel of sanctions but that is how it is operated. I would like to know how I earned an AP2 topic ban for supposedely violating a BLP topic ban with an edit that still exists. AE has become Kafka's attic. --DHeyward (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to be perfectly clear, MONGO's comments were in a BLP enforcement AE discussion, not an AP2 discussion. An AP2 restriction is a non-sequitur solution that appears to be from a motivation unencumbered by the goals of the project. SlimVirgin is correct and the TBAN should be undone..

Statement by WJBscribe[edit]

The rule about appeals being made by the sanctioned editor only should not be used to allow administrators taking enforcement actions at AE from evading proper scrutiny of their actions by the community. Sandstein does good work at AE but his aggressive enforcement focused on the letter of the law followed by (IMO) hiding behind the process to avoid communicating with colleagues even when it is clear that a mounting consensus is against his decision has repeatedly caused problems. Indeed, I remind the committee of the following remedy from May 2011: "Sandstein is advised to take care to communicate more effectively in future arbitration enforcement actions." (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling#Sandstein advised). This issue could have been resolved by proper communication between Sandstein and other users, to see if his action was supported by broader community opinion. AE actions can be taken without first establishing consensus, but they cannot be allowed to stand if consensus is clearly against them. Likewise, in my opinion it is impermissible for an admin to review an AE thread, identify that a consensus is already against their proposed course of action, and take it anyway. WJBscribe (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93[edit]

This dramafest demonstrates once again our collective inability to deal with respected contributors who are occasionally very unpleasant. These folks are at fault for carrying on in a "this is the way I am: take it or leave it" attitude. And the community is at fault for whacking them with impossible and/or disproportionate sanctions.

I mention this, first, to explain my position at AE. I am unsure whether MONGO deserved a tban. His comments were terrible: but I've received far worse from editors against whom sanctions weren't even considered. Just see my RFA. But if MONGO is to receive a tban, it should be a clearly defined one, not subject to endless further drama. In that respect, at least, I find Sandstein's action appropriate.

But (and this is the second reason for my commentary above) Sandstein is certainly aware of the drama that ensues from sanctioning seasoned content contributors. For that reason, if none else, he should have made an effort to obtain broader admin support. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The sole purpose of AE is to allow us to get on with building an encyclopedia: and therefore, extra care with respect to certain editors is entirely justifiable.

I have great respect for Sandstein. But it was pointed out to him that he created more drama than he solved, and he responded by saying he followed the rules. This is concerning, and in my view requires examination by ARBCOM. Furthermore, the admin corps at AE clearly failed to deal with the situation in a drama-reducing manner: perhaps ARBCOM can do better. Vanamonde (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) RegentsPark[edit]

It is a truth (that should be) universally acknowledged, that a single admin in search of sanctions should always make a good faith attempt to find and abide by consensus. In this instance, Sandstein did not do that. Instead, he went against consensus in sanctioning MONGO, and gave a rather unfortunate reason for doing so My experience is that is almost not possible to impose AE sanctions against long-term community members without a substantial minority, or even a majority, of other long-term community members disagreeing with it for one reason or another, a reason which sort of indicates that he believes he is better positioned to make unbiased judgements than other admins (always a dangerous sign in anyone with power). He should also not have reverted SlimVirgin when she made additional comments on the closed AE report, but rather have waited for someone else to do so. In both cases, though Sandstein admittedly followed the letter of policy on admin action, he clearly did not follow its spirit. The wise thing to do when your admin action is (~~almost universally~~widely) condemned is to reopen it and work toward a consensus solution rather than to quote policy and try to shut down debate. We're seeing the unfortunate consequences of when an admin chooses the shutting down option over the consensus seeking one.

Sandstein does good work at AE, it is not easy to make judgement after judgement against editors and I respect that. I also think that the action he took against MONGO was clearer than some of the suggestions that were being made on AE. But it is important that he realize that not attempting to seek consensus and then attempting to shut down debate on his actions is not the wiki way and that viewing yourself as a bulwark against a perception that long term content editors get special treatment from admins is probably neither constructive nor accurate. --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "almost universally" to widely per MrX's comment. I meant "universally condemned by admins" but perhaps that's not the case either. Widely fits the bill well. --regentspark (comment) 17:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush[edit]

A few years ago someone described Sandstein's actions at AE as being those of a "judge, jury and executioner" (admittedly, it was said by someone who has not had a great track record here). This is what happens when that position is taken. It's very unfortunate and, I think, rather unnecessary. I'm sure that they acted in good faith but when numerous other long-standing contributors, including admins, query an action then surely discretion is the better part of valour? Instead of continuing to suggest that it was done to protect the project and is non-negotiable, open it up for review. FWIW, I have had practically no interaction with MONGO or with the subject area - it just looks like a bad decision to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing[edit]

Just to note that the committee dealt with very similar issues in this case in 2015. That decision included Although administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement. In addition, when a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. Administrators overruling their colleagues without good cause may be directed to refrain from further participation in arbitration enforcement and was passed 10-0.

Even with that in mind, I think it is stretching things to say that Sandstein acted against an emerging consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE. There was general agreement of uninvolved admins at AE that MONGO's comments were sanction-worthy; the debate, by and large, was over what, not if.

I sympathise with those who tried to craft a narrower sanction that fit the offence better, but the background of DHeyward's narrow tban should be kept in mind; there have been a number of voices in that context arguing that admins should impose bans from all of AP2 or do nothing, because anything narrower causes trouble. Sandstein's action was well within admin discretion and a reasonable one given the discussion at AE. GoldenRing (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie and Euryalus: The idea of a minimum waiting time for AE has been discussed repeatedly and rejected, and for good reasons

For the majority of cases, it is either unnecessary or counter-productive, because:

There is ongoing disruption which a 24-hour waiting period would enable; or
Many cases are obvious and easily dealt with on a single admin's discretion.

A waiting period creates a disincentive to use AE. It will encourage editors to instead take complaints directly to friendly admins for action, since admins can act unilaterally unless a report is made to AE, in which case they have to wait 24h.
The waiting period would create a trap for admins who might be about to impose a sanction, not knowing that seconds before they click the save button, someone else has made a complaint at AE.
It's not at all clear that a minimum waiting period would have helped with this request, which had an unusually high level of admin participation for requests at AE.

So unless you intend to make AE a compulsory step in all enforcement actions, and are prepared to tolerate 24 hours of ongoing disruption before a sanction can be imposed, please don't create a minimum waiting period at AE.

I'll add that those trying to picture Sandstein as steaming in and overruling their colleagues don't appear to have read the discussion. He was the first to comment on the AE request, 14 hours before closing it. During the intervening period, there was a considerable discussion in which a majority of admins argued for a broad topic ban and Sandstein took care to interact with the thoughts of those who argued for a narrower ban in his final comment on the request. His actions were not only well within discretion but very reasonable in view of the discussion. Not everyone agreed with him, but he was hardly a lone voice. GoldenRing (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies[edit]

At the initial case I said I wasn't sure what to do, but I certainly wasn't disagreeing with Sandstein and I don't disagree with his close. I also don't see how his close is "universally" or even "widely" condemned. Such decisions are always made in a heated environment (by definition) and they aren't always easy to make; as far as I'm concerned Sandstein did nothing wrong, and made a judgment call based on the discussion and others' opinions that they handled procedurally correctly (he may remember that he overturned a procedurally incorrect but ethically correct block I placed for formal reasons). That this shouldn't be brought by someone who isn't MONGO is pretty much a fact according to our policies, but that's not the biggest deal to me; a bigger deal for me is that for all intents and purposes this just makes matters even worse, complicating a possible future appeal by MONGO, which I hope is in the works. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ceoil[edit]

While politically I fall on the polar opposite side to MONGO and greatly admire VM, I have looked up to MONGO's article work for over ten years (and have said before that his FACs are what first motivated me stop editing as an IP and open an account) and see a sometimes gruff talk page style that *does not* spill over into POV main space article contributions. I also don't think Sandstein did anything wrong per say, just a little quickly, but it seems a very harsh penalty given the length of service and the overwhelming positive contribution the man has made to this website. MONGO is informed, and given the current political climate and polarisation, its increasing difficult to keeps ones cool. Cutting him at the knee with a broad topic ban seems extremely harsh, when he's generally an amenable sort of guy and some limited restrictions on talk page conduct might better serve.

On the initial close; if consensus often does not ultimately inform the decision, what is the point of a board inviting discussion. Its it just a procedural tick the box? Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mz7[edit]

As others before me have pointed out, Sandstein was definitely allowed to take this arbitration enforcement action unilaterally (that is, without consideration for the opinions of other administrators) under the procedures set forth at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (though admins should take heed of the principle cited in GoldenRing's statement). Under the same set of procedures, any appeal – defined at the top of the page as including any request for the reconsideration, reduction, or removal of a sanction – must be brought by the editor who is under sanction, in this case MONGO (see WP:AC/DS#Appeals by sanctioned editors). If the sanctioned editor chooses not to file a formal appeal, then the process forbids any request for reconsideration on the issue made by your average Joe. The unfortunate happenstance here is that the process precludes all administrator peer review in the event that the sanctioned editor chooses not to file a formal appeal, regardless of whether the sanctioned editor has otherwise expressed their disagreement to the sanction. Only when the sanctioned editor decides to appeal can any discussion of a reconsideration, reduction, or removal of a sanction happen.

With this in mind, I think the committee should procedurally endorse Sanstein's action without prejudice to the consideration of a future appeal by MONGO. As I noted in the original AE discussion, however, there is something about the "precluding all admin peer review" that strikes me as rather un-Wikipedia, and I would appreciate if the committee can explicitly clarify that, yes, this is what was originally intended when the process was designed. Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC), last modified 19:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish (involved historically, not topically)[edit]

I have no opinion on MONGO's actions/statements personally, and am not involved in that topic area. "This is a request about AE and Sandstein, not about a particular case." I agree that a shut-down that fast, with lengthy sanctions, for not making Sandstein happy at AE, rather than for disruption in the content area at issue, is doubly inappropriate; it's insufficient time for a proper examination, and whether Sandstein is pleased with the kowtowing in his royal court is irrelevant. But this stuff is habitual with him, for years.

I object in the strongest possible terms to this "an ARCA cannot be brought on behalf of someone else" nonsense, because it absolutely is not true. An ARCA can be opened by anyone, to:

Seek clarification when they feel a clarification is needed, e.g. because they're uncertain how an ArbCom decision or AE enforcement action in furtherance of an ArbCom decision might apply to them.
Seek amendment of a previous decision or of an AE administrative action on behalf of ArbCom, e.g. because they're concerned about how it could be applied to them, or they think something wrong has been done and may be interpreted as a form of wrongful precedent.
About AE decisions, because there is no other avenue of appeal for them, and these decisions often do not affect single editors in some kind of vacuum, but are applied repetitively in case after case as a form of "standard operating procedure".
About any administrative action, because ArbCom is the only embody empowered to examine whether an administrator's actions are compliant with WP:ADMIN policy; previous RfCs to establish a community-consensus alternative venue for this have failed to gather sufficient support. If Sandstein or ArbCom would rather it be a full WP:RFARB, well, "be careful what you wish for".

Not every ARCA that involves someone else is an "appeal" of their sanction (repeat: "This is a request about AE and Sandstein, not about a particular case"), so the ArbCom rule about appeals is not some huge, smothering gag that can be duct-taped over all attempts to examine administrative AE actions in any instance in which one isn't a directly aggrieved party. Having serious concerns about procedure being followed, about vague or capricious sanctions being used, about a general sense that AE has become a minefield where one is more likely to be punished for offending just the wrong person than to have the substance of an issue examined, are – each and severably – sufficient reason for anyone to use ARCA.

A really obvious precedent – about actions by Sandstein, again – is the ARCA opened by NE Ent on behalf of me and three other editors, over similar "Judge Dredd admin" activities at ARCA – a request which was accepted and acted upon by ArbCom. Permalink to the whole thing here. This is worth reviewing in detail, including the background (Sandstein made unsupportable claims of wrongdoing against me and all these other parties, and refused to even look at evidence he was wrong, even after other admins told him he was (e.g. [68]); we then got a year-long appeal runaround (see, [69] and [70], etc.), until NE Ent, who at that time understood process better than we did, got it resolved for us.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 20:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Darkfrog24's comment below; it's also consistent with what I said in a couple of other ARCAs shortly before this one. @My very best wishes: re "his appeal must be automatically closed as 'no action' - simply by default. Why should anyone waste [our] time on the appeal if a user is no longer active?" – Obviously because most such retirements are not permanent and are predicated on [a strong perception of] unjust treatment; they become permanent usually only when wikilaywering is misused to avoid addressing the [alleged] injustice. I.e., you would set up a self-fulfilling prophecy and justify it with circular reasoning. I repeat what I said in a previous ARCA: It's not ArbCom/AE's job to WP:WIN at all costs in a game of being a badass simulation of prosecution; anyone who acts like that is the goal has no business being part of these processes (see next subsection). The purpose of these processes is to retain productive editors in a productive capacity. That cannot be done by driving them off the system and laughing at them as they leave. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also concur with isaacl's main thrust; "neither the 'Arbitration enforcement' nor 'Arbitration enforcement 2' case made much progress on ... safeguards against arbitrary enforcement decisions" [in the undesirable sense of "arbitrary"] is clearly true. Neitehr did the WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review, as I cover at #Statement by SMcCandlish on DS in the ARCA above this one, and in more detail here. It's no accident that an increasing number of ARCAs involve such matters; there are real problems here, possibly worsening. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite's "the fact that Mongo was AE topic-banned for content or behavior not made in mainspace" [or, rather, at the locus of the dispute – some DS have been applied to internal topics, as at WP:ARBATC]] gets to the heart of various disputes about AE and DS and Sandstein in particular; the NE_Ent-filed ARCA I highlight above was all about another case of Sandstein using DS against people for making "personalized" comments in AE itself, when by definition a noticeboard about user behavior is automatically "personalized"; it's exactly like charging someone with defamation during a court case because they brought the case against someone and it necessarily made allegations. It's amazing to me that someone with a real-world legal background can't see the problem with this. But this is just one of many issues with DS and AE as presently deployed.

Sandstein (in multiple ARCAs) and Kingsindian (in the one after this one) argue that the confusing situation that an AE decision can, supposedly, be appealed to ArbCom (ARCA), to AN, or to AE should be used as an excuse to shut down appeals. Most systems of appeal are a chain of escalating appeals, so this is not going to match user expectations. And ArbCom is already clear that one should appeal first to the sanction-issuing admin, yet this does not prevent an appeal after that to ArbCom. Furthermore, it's a large part of ArbCom's job to review administrative decisions, be they individual or collective. It's the only place this can be done in a binding manner, so it's completely illogical that a dismissive or "back up other admins at all costs" pseudo-review by AN or by AE itself cannot be reviewed further by ArbCom. The ARCA I mention above, opened by NE Ent for others, was exactly such a request – and ArbCom had no trouble accepting it, and bringing it to a satisfactory resolution, which got two editors to come back, me among them. In point of fact, AN refused to actually come to a decision in that case, and claimed that only ArbCom could do it. So, the idea that the "use AN or AE or ArbCom" thing is actually a standardized practice with established norms is completely false. Even AN admins don't agree that AN (or its ANI subpage) is an appropriate appeal venue for anything AE does. And AE can't sanely be viewed as a final appeal avenue for its own decisions; that's a conflict of interest and the fox guarding the henhouse. On this side matter, the clarification to make is that AE sanctions should be appealed directly to the issuing admin, then if necessary to ARCA, the end.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian writes: "This is how AE has always worked" (twice in slightly different wording). When the continual refrain is "AE is not working properly", that is clearly not an adequate answer. We know its been "working" this way, and it's not actually working. Re: "If you want to change how AE works, do it properly" – Since AE only exists as a body of ArbCom, having ArbCom examine the problems with it and suggesting ways to fix them is doing it properly, unless ArbCom wants something more specific, like a special RfC page. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 09:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: The fact that people were citing ~~WP:DIVA~~ as a besmirching and dismissing weapon is why that page was MfDed and radically rewritten has WP:HIGHMAINT several years ago. The page we have now is worth perusing; leaving Wikipedia because one feels maligned and abused is not WP:PRAM trantrum-throwing or devious WP:GAMING, as described therein. It's an understandable human reaction to get kicked around. See also departure by Tony1 recently, for even more egregious reasons. People who leave on such a basis are generally not scheming and are pretty certain they are not coming back. If they do, it can sometimes take years to come to that decision. Please do not belittle others' senses of justice and honor; it's in the same class as spiritual and other cultural differences, and going there is never going to be productive. This also speaks a bit to comments by ~~TonyBallioni~~ NE Ent earlier, like proposing to punitively block people for announcing they're leaving after being sanctioned. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-correction: The block idea was NE Ent's, not TonyBallioni's; sorry, I misremembered! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein and AE have proved to be a bad combination, for a long time[edit]

Sandstein wikilawyered against resolution for the entire year that the above drama dragged out. See also his process-above-all avoidance of resolution on this very page right now (search for "de novo" in the ARCA above, and "I think that this appeal should be rejected on procedural grounds" in this one, below). His approach has not changed in the slightest in 5+ years, despite stern criticism from multiple Arbitrators about it.

One of the sitting Arbs at the time, Salvio giuliano, wrote in NE Ent's ARCA: "@Sandstein: I have probably already told you this, but I think that your approach to WP:AE is overly formalistic and bureaucratic and, speaking personally, I consider this a problem. This case is a good example of your approach", and focused on Sandstein's reliance on wikilawyering and dubious interpretations of procedure to skirt resolution and examination. Sandstein's response to this criticism was "if you think that my work at WP:AE does more harm than good, I'm happy to quit it if you would like me to. I'm not interested in helping out where I'm not welcome to, and I really have no time for all of this." (This does not comport very well with WP:ADMINACCT). Not the first time this has come up. I'll just link to Jayen466 (Andreas) quoting all the Salient details, from two Arbs, after Sandstein said he'd quit AE "duty" if Arbs wanted him to: [71]. So, why hasn't he?

I could make a broader and very detailed case for why he should do so, including difficulty separating his personal opinions/feelings from administrative matters that are brought to AE, and a seeming inability to ever concede a mistake, but I'm skeptical this is a good thread for such a diff-pile, given the narrowness of this ARCA and it not being an RfArb. I'll close with a quote [72] from Tony1 dating to the July 2013 AN request: "I've seen Sandstein's knee-jerk, almost random punishments result in the departure of three long-standing, hard-working, talent[ed], trustworthy editors ... And the whole WMF movement is in the midst of an editor-retention crisis. Get it?" Sandstein's response to this was, in the same breath as admitting his own lack of empathy, to mock his victims as "throwing a screaming fit and rage-quitting Wikipedia" [73], plus further snide, character-assassinating aspersions of being inveterate, incompetent troublemakers [74], [75]. This is not the only such series of incidents [76].

The passage of time (and my cowed avoidance of him for several years) was giving me the wishful-thinking illusion that maybe this was all just something Sandstein had learned and grown past, but that's clearly not the case after all. If someone keeps throwing the banhammer around like a fun toy, it's time to take that dangerous weapon away.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 21:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

There are certain rules established by Arbcom, and they must be respected. One may agree or disagree with closing by Sandstein (I suggested something different on AE), but he obviously acted by the rules and in the limits of his discretion in this case. If MONGO disagree, he must talk with the closing administrator and submit an appeal to AE. This is by the rules. Not submitting an appeal can mean one of three things: (a) MONGO agree with closing by Sandstein, (b) he does not care, or (c) he does not want to act by the rules. In either case, bringing this complaint, rather than a request for amendment does not help to resolve anything because the initiative must belong to MONGO. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comments just made by MONGO above, I think his sanction could be removed and this thread closed simply per WP:IAR. If not, I think this appeal should be readdressed to WP:AE (rather than be directly handled by Arbcom) because this is proper noticeboard to handle such requests and minimize disruption. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl[edit]

The tension between arbitration enforcement actions being taken on the initiative of an individual administrator versus a consensus discussion at the enforcement noticeboard was the key issue underlying Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement, which produced the following statement that is incorporated in the discretionary sanctions instructions: In addition, when a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. The case also stated Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request are reminded that they should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions. Trying to achieve the goal of discretionary sanctions—to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles—while still having safeguards against arbitrary enforcement decisions is a difficult task (neither the "Arbitration enforcement" nor "Arbitration enforcement 2" case made much progress on this front). Perhaps some sort of circuit-breaker rules can be defined: if certain triggering events occur, such as an arbitrator requesting that a consensus discussion be held at the enforcement noticeboard, then administrators must reach a consensus decision before enacting any sanctions. If possible, the circuit-breaker rules should be based on objective standards that track the emergence of the issue as being contentious, so that administrators are not tempted to rush to judgment solely to avoid tripping a circuit-breaker. Unfortunately, I don't have any good ideas as of yet on what rules would be useful.

Another possibility would be to have the reverse: necessary conditions for an administrator to take individual action. If these conditions are not in place, then an administrator must first announce their planned action at the enforcement noticeboard and wait for a set period of time before enacting it. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus:, I disagree with a mandatory 24-hour waiting period after an enforcement request is filed before action is taken. I echo what Sandstein said and what I said above: this can precipitate hasty action by administrators in order to avoid the clock and consensus discussion. I think a waiting period needs to have some triggering conditions.

As I discussed in the "Arbitration enforcement" case, discretionary sanctions in its current form give broad authority to administrators to use their judgment in deciding the best course of action. If the arbitration committee wishes to require a mandatory discussion period, then it should revisit the process and consider moving to a "notice-and-action" model, where a request for enforcement must be raised for all issues. isaacl (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I discussed during the "Arbitration enforcement" case, I feel there is a danger in having a mandatory waiting period that applies only to filed requests, as this encourages people to file quickly in order to trigger the waiting period. The process should foster collaborative discussion first, rather than provide incentives for quick filings. isaacl (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Shih[edit]

Writing here instead as I have commented at the original AE. MrX is correct that although I have disagreed with close, but I have nothing further to add as many have pointed out that it was procedurally correct. I am still hoping the decision can be reconsidered because, as the subsequent turmoil suggests, it does not represent the best interest of the project. I wholeheartedly endorse Newyorkbrad's proposal below. Alex Shih (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite[edit]

I don't believe Sandstein is temperamentally suited for AE. If there is a place for a no confidence vote on that, I make it here. I also don't like the fact that Mongo was AE topic-banned for content or behavior not made in mainspace. I probably agree with that guy about zero politically, but fair is fair and dirty is dirty... That topic ban is for the abuse of mainspace, not a handy "put into jail free" card. Finally, I wish the political warriors would get the hell out of contemporary political biography. That might be wishing for the unachievable, but I like to think that conservatives and lefties alike can check the politics at the door and behave like NPOV-respecting Wikipedians. I don't know if Mongo qualifies as such a content warrior, but there unquestionably is a lot of political gamesmanship going on and there needs to be a topic-ban slaughter of a bunch of the gamers, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick - Sure, he's a fantastic closer: for example, turning an obvious Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames used by Donald Trump into a no consensus muddle, apparently on an IDONTLIKEIT basis or something... Carrite (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni[edit]

I think that Sandstein's topic ban was good at the time: I don't think any of the alternatives would have been useful, but at the same time, seeing MONGO's appeal above, I would support it if it was lifted entirely and replaced with a strong warning about repeating similar actions. I oppose what MONGO seems to be suggesting as an NPA ban: those don't work, especially not with popular editors. If it was ever enforced, we'd wind up right back here again. A warning accomplishes the same thing, and doesn't add an additional layer of bureaucracy. Also, FWIW, as one of the editors who was subject to the actions in question, I personally didn't mind. I like MONGO, and I knew he was defending a friend. I see his point of view there, even if I obviously ended up disagreeing with it: people of good will can end up disagreeing and even calling eachother names, and it be fine, though the latter shouldn't happen frequently. I can only speak for myself in that regard, but I thought it might be worth something. Also, I think this appeal would be easier to handle at AE now that MONGO is actually appealing it, though that is of course up to him. It would also likely have a quicker resolution there. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus and KrakatoaKatie: a 24 hour waiting period at AE would likely have the opposite effect that you want. The AE regulars would just go directly to a favourable admin. This is similar to how AE is becoming used less as an appeal venue in favour of AN: vested contributors have realized that a consensus of admins at AE is unlikely to overturn a legitimately imposed sanction, so they try their luck at AN. A 24 hour wait would make AE only useful for sanctioning new users, who for the most part don’t actually need AE action. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish: I’ve never suggested blocking anyone for announcing their retirement on this or any other page. I did say that I thought DHeyward’s actions at Jimbo-talk should be taken as a part of a consistent pattern of trying to test the limits of the DS system as a part of reviewing his appeal, but I think a block would be pointless, and on AE and here have explicitly said it was unclear as to whether that was a TBAN violation given the ARCA factor. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv[edit]

I support granting the following relief to MONGO: Lifting the sanction entirely, without replacing it with another sanction. Given MONGO's statement above, which ticks all my boxes for a mea culpa and promise not to repeat, I believe it serves no further purpose and lifting it will boost general editor morale in this sector. MONGO's statement strikes me as heartfelt, genuine, thoughtful, and introspective. Moreover, the statement makes it clear that MONGO was affected by the odd circumstances of the situation, particularly the ultrafast pacing of AE (perhaps a special case of the meatball:ForestFire or meatball:AngryCloud). I think that's forgivable.

As to the other aspects of MONGO's statement, I think we should look at improving the AE/DS process generally. I believe MONGO's suggestion of a minimum 24-hour window is probably right-minded. Though I believe there should be the option for reviewing admins to take preliminary action to preserve a status quo, there should still probably be a minimum 24-hour window before that preliminary action becomes a final decision that has to go through the appeals process. 07:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]

I join SMcCandlish, Carrite, and others expressing concern with Sandstein's overall approach to AE. "Overly formalistic and bureaucratic" is a good way to put it. Even in this latest episode, after inquiries and concerns from admins and editors alike, Sandstein is convinced he has done the right thing. Also see here for another example of Sandstein's approach. That episode was kicked off by a rapid fire, controversial AE action by Sandstein and subsequent refusal to discuss with others. Sound familiar? Admins active at AE should be a little more open to feedback about their actions. That example, coupled with SMcCandlish's above seem to show that Sandstein's activity at AE sometimes causes more disruption than benefit. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24[edit]

I would like to add to the list by My very best wishes (talk · contribs): d) Mongo might not have known what the rules were, especially if those rules are not written down or if the written version is out of date; e) Mongo might have decided that he did not want to make a fuss and would wait until the sanction expired or until everyone calmed down/could look at the issue with fresh eyes. Any policy, written or otherwise, that places "If you don't complain or don't complain in the exact right way, then you are confessing and agreeing that you deserve to be punished" will only make trouble for Wikipedia by preventing people from getting punishments lifted, by saddling admins with appeals by editors who would have been willing to wait out their sanctions and by generally rendering the atmosphere more toxic. Think about it. You're an admin. You just gave an editor a sanction that they don't think they deserve but they're willing to shut up and edit somewhere else for three months. Then that editor finds out "If you don't appeal, we'll assume you agree that you're a dirty troublemaker." Well now they have to appeal and you the admin have to be on the receiving end. Appealing is not disruption, but it is work for everyone involved. There's a flip side to this. I'd like everyone to try this on for size: "Sandstein did not violate any policies. Perhaps we should modify or revoke the sanction anyway." Lifting a sanction on Mongo does not require imposing one on Sandstein. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent[edit]

Condolences on the new members on election to the ~~Ninth Circle of Hell~~ Arbcom.

The rigidity of WP:AC/DS and the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules pillar have not, do not, and will never co-exist very well. (Which is, of course, what NYB just said in Bradspeak). Therefore, per WP:Policy fallacy, while arbcom 18 is certainly empowered to rewrite AC/DS wording, it's really not going to help.

Stepping back to actual proximate causes, what should have been a simple appeal / rewording -- because, yes, banning an editor from mainspace due to poor wikipedia space behavior doesn't actual make sense -- blew up into this drama fest because of MONGO just having to "Retire" [77] (see WP:OWB#40).

What ya'll really ought to -- but probably won't: although it's direct and simple and would probably work, it doesn't fit some "fairness / sympathy" vibe that mucks up WP dispute resolution -- is add this DS: Any editor who posts a RETIRED template during a dispute maybe site banned for three^[1] days by any administrator.^[2] Such a siteban may only appealed to the arbitration committee via email^[3].

Wikipedia would be better served if the involved admins would, as hard as it is in the heat of the moment, to dial down the rhetoric while disagreeing.

Footnotes

^ 3 isn't so important. Make it 2, make it a week, whatever.
^ I left out "involved" intentionally.
^ Whatever length you decide, make it short enough you won't actually consider overturning it before it times out

Statement by Dennis Brown[edit]

Speaking on procedure rather than merits: I'm seeing a lot of discussion about "consensus" but it is my understanding that AE isn't about consensus at all, and in fact, any closing or action taken by any admin is theirs alone: they own it. My understanding is that any admin may close at any time, with or without sanction, and the close itself is considered an admin action (I forget the Arb case, but yes, you concluded that). And that AE isn't even required at all, that an admin can act outside of AE just as he would within the walls of that board. It is a nice sounding board for admin to hear the opinions of other admin and non-admin alike, but all *actions* are considered unilateral, whether or not others agreed, so there is no requirement to consider other opinions or gain consensus. You would have to change policy if you wanted it to become a consensus board. This complaint seems completely out of process and unsupported by policy. WP:AE or WP:AN are the normal channels to appeal, and should be filed by the sanctioned party. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

In response to SlimVirgin asking to post examples of admins (other than Sandstein) who overrule the consensus of uninvolved admins at AE., I can give this example (pointed to me by Tarc) by current Arb Callanecc. I don't know whether the sanction was merited or not, but what I see in that request is that any admin can use their judgement to impose sanctions and need not wait for a consensus at AE. As far as I know, this is how AE has functioned always.

Aside from this explicit example, one should also keep in mind that AE sanctions need not involve any request at all: any admin can act unilaterally. If other admins don't get a chance to weigh in, how can one determine consensus? Many of Coffee's recent blocks didn't follow an AE request. One can also recall the old Eric Corbett drama, where admins (including Arbs) engaged in this practice. This is how AE has always worked. If you want to change how AE works, do it properly, don't engage in special pleading. I will support people in the former endeavour. SMcCandlish's points are also interesting, though I haven't considered them in detail. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark[edit]

I agree with SMcCandlish, Mr Ernie, Carrite and everyone else who has expressed concern with Sandstein's conduct. Sure, he may technically be empowered to hand out lengthy sanctions unilaterally and without any regard for the opinions of his peers, but that doesn't make it a good idea. As noted above, this is not the first time he has created a dramafest with his over-the-top application of sanctions. Eventually, the community is going to get fed up... maybe sooner than later. Lepricavark (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Cohen[edit]

This thread was brought to my attention. I see that Sandstein is still being Sandstein and Arbcom are still being Arbcom by not bringing his actions under proper control. This is the combination that made me leave WP for some years ago. Unless Arbcom shows some sort of ability to control admins who lack empathy and whose first reaction to anyone who points out that they have done wrong is to look at what sanctions they can bring against the critic, then I have no intention of returning to Wikipedia and risking another outbreak of Sandsteinism against me or similar behaviour from other toxic admins. And this extends to not SOFIXITing any of the numerous errors I have spotted when browsing WP. --Peter cohen (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out something in common here with my experience, My case was another one in which Sandstein threatened me with sanctions under an area whose articles I have never edited. I just pointed out that he was misguided about some matters of fact to do with the sanctions he was applying to one or two others and his immediate reaction was to attack me with his Admin powers. Here is another instance where his first reaction was to try to avoid [[WP:ADMINACCT] by seeking sanctions against SV and using that as a reason to close this discussion.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) Coretheapple[edit]

I just saw this matter referenced on SlimVirgin's talk page. Am not acquainted with Mongo and I don't recall ever encountering him.

In this discussion I find myself in total agreement with editors with whom I rarely agree (Carrite comes to mind). It is simply wrong and deeply unfair for an administrator to issue a sweeping topic ban against an editor on the basis of comments made outside of mainspace. SlimVirgin's points are well-taken. There is nothing that bothers me more than losing good contributors on the basis of unfair or arbitrary administrator actions. I am glad that Mongo is appealing and hope that this matter is satisfactorily resolved. Coretheapple (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) Mr rnddude[edit]

If I had been aware of this sooner, I would have posted here much earlier. This is my statement and is basically a copy-paste of what I said several days ago on TRM's talk page (with some fluff removed): Based on the closing sanction placed against MONGO I expected to see some AP2 related evidence of either disruptive editing or disruption on article talk pages. Instead I find that he's received a TBAN from AP2 as a remedy against personal attacks - and they were egregious personal attacks - at WP:AE, User talk:Mr X, and WP:AN. Given that sanctions should be preventative and not punitive, I think that the failure to meaningfully address the issues presented and the slapping of a TBAN that does not prevent the issues, but, does prevent any constructive editing to a topic area unrelated (strictly speaking) to the conduct is ... appalling. Nothing, except an impending future block, prevents MONGO from repeating those exact same comments in any place that isn't covered by AP2. This is, quite obviously, meant to punish MONGO for their comments and not prevent them from making similar comments in the future. I too echo SV's sentiment: what can be done? first to prevent this sort of renegade punitive sanctions in the future and second how do we address the renegade actions of admins who impose such sanctions. Thank you for your time, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS[edit]

I'm pleased to see that we have a reasonable outcome at this point. Nevertheless this request for clarification has not clarified the underlying problem, that the mechanism of AE is unbalanced. No matter how many admins review the issue and conclude that no action is necessary, or a warning is sufficient, it only takes one admin to decide that excessively punitive sanctions are justified for them to be applied. And unfortunately we have at least one admin who is not capable of taking a nuanced view, but can only follow unbendingly what they perceive policy to be. With normal sanctions there are checks and balances for that – other admins may reverse the first decision or reduce its severity on their judgement, but AE has removed those checks, allowing unfettered use of admin powers. This would be ameliorated if there were a functional mechanism for questioning AE decisions, but when an admin refuses point-blank to listen to criticism of their actions, and even hides behind a rigid interpretation of policy preventing anyone but the recipient of the sanctions from appealing those sanctions, we find ourselves without recourse. Kudos to Sarah for making an IAR appeal, and to the Arbs for entertaining it. It was the right thing™ to do. Now, I request that the Arbs carefully consider whether they want this IAR mechanism as the only alternative to an unfairly sanctioned editor – who is likely already too pissed-off to want to re-engage – making an appeal themselves. You need to fix the problem: you could vet the admins whom you allow to work at AE; or create a mechanism that ensures that other admins' views have to be taken into account in determining any AE action; or create usable channel for review of AE decisions. This isn't the first time this issue has arisen and it won't be the last unless you act. The present situation is untenable, and if left unaddressed will surely recur. --RexxS (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

Many people have already stated my opinion, so I will just be brief. I think what is needed is a total redoing of the AE space. Perhaps a working group of several members can start the process to make it a more fair and equitable place for adjudication. It's not working the way it is now, so we need to try something else. (On a side note, I do think we should also bring back RFC/U, which would IMO cut down on AN/I requests.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recuse having made a statement. GoldenRing (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Recuse from anything specific to this particular topic ban/AE thread. If this turns into a discussion on AE/discretionary sanctions generally, I do not intend to be recused from that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting any further statements, including from Sandstein. Note that we'll read through the related AE thread in reviewing this, so there's no need to re-post here every thought that was posted there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My thoughts:

Yes, the general rule is that only the subject of a sanction can appeal it. This usually makes good sense. If an editor who is (for example) blocked or topic-banned on AE accepts the sanction, that usually means it's more-or-less reasonable, and it wouldn't do anyone any good for someone else to protest it. And the appeal system might be overwhelmed if anyone could appeal from any sanction against anyone else.

This rule against User:A's appealing User:B's sanction works well 95+% of the time. But it occasionally causes problems, in instances where many editors deeply disagree with a sanction and think it's unfair or wrongful, but the sanctioned editor refuses to appeal it for whatever reason. (For anyone who might not have noticed it, MONGO's explanation for not having appealed is here. I appreciate his desire not to create drama by appealing, but we are getting the drama anyway.) When this situation came up in a case two years ago, I asked whether exceptions to the rule might sometimes be justified. Unfortunately, no one was able to suggest how to craft the exceptions without swallowing the rule.

This ARCA request has much the same effect as SlimVirgin's appealing from the sanction against MONGO. She (and some of the commenters) also raise broader questions about how AE functions, but they are raised in the context of a particular AE decision that she disagrees with, and if we agreed with her views, then presumably we would consider overturning that decision.

Nonetheless, since I've spent the time reviewing the case, and MONGO may appeal in the future, let's talk about the substance a little bit and see if we can actually resolve this. We can all agree that MONGO's comments were a series of uncivil and unhealthy personal attacks. Some of them could be blockable even if they didn't relate to a topic-area under DS. And this is not the first time MONGO has lost his head on-wiki. In the same diff cited above, MONGO acknowledged yesterday that 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.

As noted by SlimVirgin, NeilN, and others, MONGO's misconduct did not take place in article space, but primarily on AE (and, a month ago, on AN). I can imagine cases in which misconduct on noticeboards or talkpages warrants a topic-ban that includes mainspace— but here, no one has identified any bad article-space edits at all. As MONGO wrote, in his first response to the enforcement request, [m]y comments [were] here at AE where I will gladly impose a self exile.

Although there is no appeal formally before us, in anticipation of a possible one (or under IAR if need be), I ask Sandstein and the other admins in the AE thread if they would consider substituting for the three-month topic-ban a restriction for six months against MONGO's (1) participating in AE discussions relating to editors other than himself, and (2) making personal attacks against other editors. I also ask MONGO whether he would accept such a result, and just as importantly, abide by it. And I would also say to MONGO that this has to be the last time we have this discussion.

With regard to the broader issue of "whether an AE sanction requires consensus," this has been discussed before. An AE administrator is not required to wait for consensus, especially when there is an obvious violation. But where discussion is ongoing, opinion is divided, and disruption is not ongoing, it will often be prudent to wait for at least a rough consensus to emerge. There's also been a repeated suggestion that AE threads, absent ongoing disruption or other urgency, should stay open for at least 24 hours.

I hope these comments help. Procedural formalism would suggest that I should have written "improper appeal" (or, for the benefit of my legal colleagues Sandstein and Salvio giuliano, "rule of jus tertii") and nothing more—but procedural formalism doesn't sustain a community or write an encyclopedia. But neither does making accusations against other editors or calling one another various names. That point, incidentally, applies not only to MONGO. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Confirming per your latest comments that I have no objection to your lifting the topic-ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Since discussion has wound down, you can please go ahead and lift the topic-ban, as you've indicated you believe should happen, without waiting any longer. As a practical matter it has all but already happened anyway—in self-parodying legal terms, aequitas factum habet quod fieri oportuit—"equity looks upon as done that which ought to have been done." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse. Alex Shih (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we do have an appeal before us now. Brad's comments are well-reasoned and I agree, though I don't like civility/NPA restrictions. They're difficult to enforce and have historically created more drama about what is and isn't civil or uncivil. In this case, though, MONGO seems to agree to a six-month NPA restriction and a concurrent ban on AE participation, and I would be in favor of that in the interest of settling this down sooner rather than later. MONGO says he realizes that his behavior has not always been collegial, and if he knows it, he should be able to restrain himself. I also concur with Brad's directive that this has to be the last warning to MONGO about his temper.

I also strongly suggest that AE admins take to heart the repeated suggestion about holding those threads open for at least 24 hours unless there's current, ongoing disruption. That was not the case here; we're all busy and we need to give people time to see these requests. Just because you can close it doesn't necessarily mean you should. Katie^talk 12:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Also confirming that I have no objection to you lifting the topic ban yourself. Katie^talk 17:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly what KrakatoaKatie and Newyorkbrad said, except the bit about replacement sanctions:

- Accept this appeal: MONGO has now lodged an appeal, which overcomes a technical issue with this discussion. Sandstein’s most recent comment reads like they accept that appeal. If so, the path of least bureaucracy would be for them to now lift the topic ban. But if we do need an actual ARCA vote on it, support lifting the topic ban and replacing it with nothing. MONGO: it seems like heat of the moment stuff. Please don't do it again.

- Support an AE waiting period Separate to anything in this appeal, we have long needed a minimum time between AE filing and close. I've supported this since 2016, including at Arbcom election time and this talkpage thread. Great to see it proposed again in this thread. Strongly support an amendment to this procedure to impose a 24-hour waiting period between AE filing and close, with exceptions only for obvious ongoing vandalism and for snow declines.

- Support a further clarification As a proposal again unrelated to this specific appeal, support this amendment: ”Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. However, when the case is not clear-cut they are ~~encouraged~~ reasonably expected, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement.” -- Euryalus (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein and Alanscottwalker: AE appeals can be made directly to the enforcing admin; if the enforcing admin has accepted the appeal it seems the path of least bureaucracy to proceed with that acceptance, at least in this instance. But equally happy to go ahead with a vote by the committee. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: I think we'll have to disagree, then. The procedure grants the enforcing admin the authority to make a direct decision on appeals of their action. There's a legitimate case for an enforcing admin to decline to do so on the grounds that the appeal is being considered in another forum, but there's also the option for them to proceed if they wish, at least while those other fora have failed to reach a point of view (after which those other fora would prevail in likely order of seniority). In neither case is it a matter of "getting it wrong" - a sanction was unilaterally imposed (as authorised by the procedure), it can be unilaterally undone by the same admin (also as authorised by the procedure) if they consider the appeal to have validity. But again, no problem if it's preferred to be remanded here for a vote. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree that Mongo's appeal should be accepted and also hope that action by us will not be needed and that Sandstein will lift the topic ban. Likewise I will support any motion calling for a minimum time between a filing at AE and a decision, given appropriate exceptions. I haven't definitely decided about Euryalus's proposal about explicit consensus but at the moment it appeals to me. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: You really don't need a majority of Arbs to do this. And I hope you counted me: "hope that action by us will not be needed and that Sanstein will lift the topic ban." Doug Weller talk 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I’ve removed TPP but of course tou could have posted through it. Doug Weller talk 07:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the same page as Euryalus. Mongo's appeal should be accepted, preferably by Sandstein - though I'm sure if he refuses we can sort out a motion. I'm not sure I agree with a minimum time period between filing AE and decision, in many cases this is not needed - If someone can think of a way to increase the general period, but to allow a short circuit for urgency (e.g. 1RR violations). Finally, I do like the suggestion that reasonably expected thoughts of other admins be taken into account. Worm^TT(talk) 14:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Anythingyouwant (May 2018)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Anythingyouwant at 23:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t); [78] (AE in April); [79] (AE in January)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

[80] (my user talk re. April)
[81] (my user talk re. January)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
MrX (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Information about amendment request

[82] (my user talk)

The desired modification is that I am no longer indefinitely topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. A lesser sanction would be less objectionable.

Statement by Anythingyouwant[edit]

This is the edit at issue to the Donald Trump article. And this is the edit at issue to my user talk page.

Regarding the article edit, I don't recall that any admins in this case disputed that I was correcting an extremely obvious BLP violation; I also don't recall any of the admins disputing that the BLP violation was biased (3RRNO exempts "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material"). Based on this AE proceeding, I gather that correcting even the most obviously biased BLP violation will not be exempt from sanctions unless the violation is simultaneously very extreme (like replacing Trump's image with that of a chimpanzee), and I promise to infer this from 3RRNO in the future, though I urge that 3RRNO be edited to actually say so. Please note: I took this to the article talk page after citing "WP:BLP" in an article edit summary only once, so it’s obvious I wasn’t jamming the material back in repetitively.

Regarding the comment at my user talk page, I have always known that user talk comments can be blockable if they are nasty or irrelevant enough, but I don't recall getting any civility warning in the past regarding comments at my user talk. Once I realized that my user talk might arguably be subject to the Trump-page sanctions or the post-1932 sanctions (i.e. more than usual civility restrictions) I deleted this relatively mild comment,[83] and told NeilN I had deleted it.[84]

Neil notes that, "On January 20th they were given a one month topic ban from Donald Trump." Here's a link to that January proceeding at AE. That one-month block was not for any edit I made to any article or any talk page, but rather was for an allegedly inaccurate edit summary, which I honestly and reasonably thought was indeed accurate. Anyway, jumping from that kind of narrow, limited-duration topic-ban at the Trump page to this kind of broad topic-ban is a huge and unwarranted leap under the circumstances. Incidentally and FWIW, I do enjoy editing other non-political areas of Wikipedia, but only in combination with the political ones, so it seems that this would be a lifetime ban from the project. It's rather punitive given that I removed my user talk comment and will consider myself warned about that, and given that I also promise to interpret 3RRNO as exempting correction not of all obviously biased BLP violations, but rather only the most egregious of those violations. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Beyond My Ken, you were involved at AE.[85] Am I supposed to also list everyone involved at article talk? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve shortened the list of involved parties per suggestion of BMK. So not everyone who was involved in the AE discussion is now listed here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, you place great weight upon the January proceedings at AE. Here are the two article edits I made: [86][87]. Are you really saying now that I was not fully entitled to make those edits, putting aside what I said in the edit summaries? As best I recall, no one alleged that I was not fully entitled to make those two edits, and if they did allege that then I disagree, because there is no reason why I would not have been entitled to make those two edits. A new section had been added, so I cut and pasted it elsewhere. That's it. The only controversy was because I believed that no one would be entitled to put it back in the original location without consensus per the discretionary sanctions (which forbid restoration of reverted material without consensus). So I tried to indicate that in the edit summaries. User:MelanieN, for example, acknowledged that those two edits were fully permissible, putting side the edit summaries. I am glad to obey the January consensus that moving the material should not be considered a revert within the meaning of the discretionary sanctions, but my moving the material was itself perfectly fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, if you're going to heavily rely upon and quote from the January matter, please at least answer my brief question: Are you really saying now that I was not fully entitled to make those edits, putting aside what I said in the edit summaries? No need to relitigate, just yes or no would be fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, my personal belief that Wikipedia hosts numerous POV-pushers and propagandists, along with many other good people, ought to have exactly nothing to do with the present matter. Your argument would be more plausible if you’d acknowledge that (1) the comment I made was at my user talk, (2) you have not cited any past civility issues or warnings involving me, (3) I deleted my user talk comment immediately when I realized that the Trump discretionary sanctions and the post-1932 discretionary sanctions might arguably apply to my user talk page, and (4) I have consistently advocated reasonable solutions to the systemic bias problem in Wikipedia’s political articles including at the very AE proceeding that is now being appealed. Banning me for believing Wikipedia has a systemic bias problem does not make a lot of sense to me. NPOV violations and BLP violations usually do not happen by accident, and if there are enough editors at a particular article who support those violations then they often succeed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, I deleted the comment at my user talk when I realized the political discretionary sanctions might apply to my user talk; that happened before the April AE proceeding was closed, so I hardly see how you can reasonably accuse me of lying now about it. You sanctioned me after I already deleted the user talk comment, as I recall. As for whether there was any basis for the user talk comment, that comment was in response to what I reasonably considered to be a BLP violation, rather than being some mindless bullshit, and my understanding currently is that something can be a BLP violation (even an obvious violation), without rising to the extreme level of a 3RRNO exemption. That’s my honest understanding, not a lie. But feel free to continue painting me as a liar, as others have done at this page. It doesn’t make me one. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MelanieN, during the January AE proceeding, you said “Anything, I might well have done the move in two edits. But my edit summaries would have said that was what I would [sic] doing: ‘deleting section preparatory to a move’, ‘moving’.”[88] Thus, regardless of what Melanie finds it convenient to say now, she only objected then to my edit summaries. Whether I moved the material in one edit or a series of two consecutive edits (which was easier), I was entirely entitled to move the newly-added material, and entirely reasonable in thinking that removed or moved material could not be restored to its original placement without consensus per the discretionary sanctions. The proceeding in January at AE was incredibly nasty and punitive, including when I was blocked for merely correcting a small typographical error in my own comment at AE (the block was overturned as you can see in my block log). Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MelanieN, if I misunderstood what you were trying to say in January, then I apologize, and I’m glad that I pinged you when I said that you “acknowledged the edits were fully permissible”. But let me say this loud and clear: the idea makes no sense to me that new content inserted into the Donald Trump article cannot be edited or moved merely because it is under discussion at the article talk page where there is no consensus it should remain untouched. The more you repeat this idea, the more perplexed I become. Frankly, I think the whole proceeding in January was a farce, given that editors are free to edit new content when there is no consensus that it should be left alone. ~~Duh~~. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MelanieN, you say “He still claims that when I said ‘two-step edits are permissible,’ it was the same thing as saying ‘Anythingyouwant’s edit was permissible’.” You either did not read my comment just above this one, or you are lying. Which? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MelanieN, thanks for clarifying which.[89] Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, Neil says here at this page (referring to my edit inserting Trump’s denial): “Anythingyouwant was not sanctioned for that edit....” So there doesn’t seem much point in discussing it further than what I already said above. Regarding the Moore BLP, I agreed with User:GoldenRing: “this is not Anythingyouwant pleading BLP against the whole world; there are other editors in good standing who agree with him and so we should AGF and not dismiss the BLP claim out of hand.... we should not be in the business of sanctioning editors for clarifying that someone has not confessed to a crime.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:My very best wishes, usually I don’t come to ArbCom, because it’s not such an onerous penalty, and anyway (frankly) I don’t have huge confidence in ArbCom. But, as Neil said here at this page, this is “[p]robably the best place for this one as WP:AE would largely be a rehash and WP:AN would likely become a mess.” Anyway, where are your best wishes for me??? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:My very best wishes, anyone can read what the admins said at AE, so I haven't tried to summarize. You on the other hand, have given an inaccurate summary here at this page: "At the end of this AE discussion, two experienced admins agreed with NeilN and one suggested a softer restriction." That's false, and anyone can go see that more than three admins responded to Neil. The admins commenting there were Sandstein, RegentsPark, Masem, Bishonen, GoldenRing, and Fish + Karate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:My very best wishes, if you’re going to alter your comment after it’s been responded to, please indicate that alteration with strikethroughs or underlines, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SPECIFICO, watch out, this page might be just as much under discretionary sanctions as my user talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, please don’t delete comments by other editors.[90] Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators, User:Mastcell says here at this page, "Anythingyouwant is lying. He's lying. To you." I would appreciate an opportunity to respond carefully to that charge, which is very false, and which relates to events of January 2018. I have to get some sleep now, but hope you will give me time tomorrow to briefly prove Mastcell wrong. As for the pre-2018 events that Mastcell cites (none of which Neil brought up), I'm not sure that ArbCom is interested or willing to hear anything I have to say about them; Mastcell omits a great deal, just like Neil has declined to address or acknowledge here any facts that might not work in his favor. So, unless ArbCom indicates willingness for me to address pre-2018 events (including when I have successfully invoked the BLP exemption, and also Mastcell's own involvement in some of the matters he has mentioned), I won't. But I do plan to address Mastcell's false accusation that I am a liar, which I find extremely offensive, and which relates to events of January this year. That accusation by Mastcell is apparently designed to inflate a relatively tame comment at my user talk page (Neil explicitly says he is not disputing the BLP exemption) into an indefinite and broad topic ban. I almost hope that ArbCom endorses Neil's indefinite topic ban, so that my Wikipedia nightmare will be over. For now, I must sleep. Then I will disprove Mastcell's accusation, which I find very typical of him. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators, okay, since you have not indicated willingness for me to address pre-2018 events (including when I have successfully invoked the BLP exemption,[91] and also Mastcell's own involvement in some of the matters he has mentioned), I won't. Anyone who is interested can read about how MastCell and I long ago began our conflict here. Anyway, I will rebut MastCell's current false and hurtful accusation ("Anythingyouwant is lying. He's lying. To you.") within the hour assuming I'm not forbidden. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell wrote at this page: "[L]ook at Anythingyouwant's behavior in this request:

He invokes MelanieN, claiming that she "acknowledged that those two edits were fully permissible, putting side the edit summaries".
In fact, MelanieN called the edits in question "a 'cute trick', a two-part move based on attempts to game the DS sanctions".

These two statements can't both be true; either MelanieN 'acknowledged the edits were fully permissible', or she called them out as an attempt to game the system. Anythingyouwant is lying. He's lying. To you."

MastCell is wrong. Here is a link to that January proceeding. Unlike MastCell, I will describe this matter chronologically. MastCell is correct that MelanieN called my two article edits “a ‘cute trick’, a two-part move based on attempts to game the DS sanctions.” She did so at 01:21, 23 January 2018.[92] I then responded to MelanieN:

Coffee said "I fully understand using the two edits to have to copy then paste", but you attribute the two separate edits to conniving and scheming on my part. Would you have done it in one edit or two? Obviously, it was much easier to do in two edits. Please, I have no problem considering them as one single edit for purposes of retrospective analysis, in which case my same rationale justified the edit summary: I was reverting the insertion of this new material by moving it, given that "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Please, a week-long ban for a mere connotation via edit summary? I can't believe you seriously think that's appropriate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Then Melanie answered:

Anything, I might well have done the move in two edits. But my edit summaries would have said that was what I would doing: "deleting section preparatory to a move", “moving”. I would not have claimed that the first one was challenging content by reverting it, as you did. As a matter of fact, in discussion at your talk page you doubled down on that claim, insisting to me that your “main objective was to remove disputed material”,[11] because it was “riddled” with “biased POV-pushing” that you would rather have removed from the article.[12] One minute later you restored that horribly biased section back into the article, while proclaiming that nobody else could restore it because … well, because one minute earlier you had challenged the content as so biased and POV that it shouldn’t be in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday, here at this page, I said, “User:MelanieN, for example, acknowledged that those two edits were fully permissible, putting side the edit summaries.” MastCell says this last statement cannot be true while MelanieN's statement at 01:21, 23 January 2018 is also true. MastCell surgically omits that I disputed that statement by MelanieN at 01:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC), and surgically omits that she then answered at 04:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC): “I might well have done the move in two edits. But my edit summaries would have said that was what I would doing.” MastCell has cherrypicked a statement by MelanieN without telling ArbCom that her statement was followed by further discussion. The admin who brought that charge against me in January has left the project;[93] and MastCell’s accusation now that I have lied is absurd. It is also very characteristic of MastCell's tactics once he sets a goal for himself. I also still disagree with Melanie that there’s anything inconsistent about moving a section lower down in an article, while arguing that the material in the section ought to be selectively scattered chronologically throughout the article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MastCell, my statement that you are repeatedly and shamelessly calling a lie was that MelanieN “acknowledged the edits were fully permissible”. Do you know the difference between “permissible” and “acceptable”? Of course Melanie disagrees with my edit, and I’ve never said otherwise. But both she and the admin who accused me acknowledged it was a permssible edit. Why the hell wouldn’t it be permissible to move new content down? And what the hell is unreasonable about thinking it couldn’t be moved back up without consensus? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from AE: “Wikipedia’s most effective means of censorship is not to directly modify content, but rather to get rid of editors. You can judge for yourself how true that is.“ Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mdann52, I strongly object to your removal of evidence presented that I am a civil editor. On what grounds do you remove it? User:SPECIFICO specifically thanked me for restoring that useful and pertinent information. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mdann52, thanks for your reply. When an editor makes a personal attack in the midst of a larger statement, I think it's much more appropriate to redact the personal attack rather than delete the entire larger statement, as you did. For the record, you deleted the following opinion of User:SPECIFICO: "Dear Arbcom: I've said this at AE, but now I get the chance to say directly to you. Anythingyouwant, who is reasonably civil and emotionally stable....". This seems very credible coming from someone who has such a low opinion of other alleged aspects of me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why I cannot get an answer to my question here, nor why the outrageous personal attack against me on this page by User:MastCell has been met with complete silence thus far. So sorry to be inconvenient. So sorry to question the limits of discretion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC). I suppose it’s within arbitrator discretion to not explain why something is within admin discretion. I didn’t do anything in January other than move down some new material when there was no consensus to keep it where it was, and I don’t think anyone ought to have discretion to sanction me for doing nothing wrong. Just my opinion, of course. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mdann52, why has my request for amendment been modified without explanation and without pinging me? At 14:08 on 5 May 2018‎ you made this edit deleting User:Sandstein as a party in this matter, deleting the diff of my notification to Sandstein, but leaving Sandstein's imposition of a month-long topic ban as a case or decision affected. If you're going to alter my appeal here without asking me, wouldn't at least pinging be appropriate in order to make me aware that you've altered my appeal? Moreover, I do not understand why these changes were done. Your edit summary simply says, "Fix per email" which really does not give any explanation. And why not use strikethrough instead of removing any trace that I wrote that stuff? At the talk page for this page, I wrote in April, "There was a January proceeding at AE that is now moot in the sense that my one-month topic ban from the Donald Trump article has ended, but it’s not moot in the sense that User:NeilN is presently relying on it to give me a broader and indefinite topic ban in response to a since-deleted comment at my user talk page. Can I or should I explicitly include that January AE proceeding in my request for Amendment of Neil’s sanction that is currently under way, or is such inclusion already implied?" User:Doug Weller responded here at this page by saying, among other things, "make the choice yourself." Am I now not allowed to make that choice? I have explained above why I think the sanction imposed by Sandstein on me was wrong: all I did was move down some new content when there was no consensus that it remain where it had been put, and I tried to indicate in my edit summaries that it should not be put back in the higher position without consensus per the discretionary sanctions. I don't understand why anything I did was wrong, and yet User:NeilN has explicitly said that sanctions for the comment I later deleted at my user talk are being piggybacked on Sandstein's sanction, resulting in a very onerous penalty on me. I strongly object all around. The comment at my user talk was not unsupported, given that WP:BLP had just been violated, and I deleted the comment anyway when I realized that discretionary sanctions might apply at user talk, just to be on the safe side. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand why arbitrators are suggesting to appeal at AE. The sanction was dished out at AE, and whoever heard of appealing at the same place as the original matter? As User:NeilN already said here, “WP:AE would largely be a rehash”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN[edit]

I'm going to copy some of my rationale for the topic ban here: "...I had another look at Anythingyouwant's editing history. On January 20th they were given a one month topic ban from Donald Trump. On January 27th they took a break from editing. They returned on April 13th and went back to Donald Trump a couple days after. On the 19th they started the attacks that landed them here. This indicates they will simply wait until their topic ban expires and then continue their disruption. When reading their "discretionary sanctions applies to user talk pages? really??" comments above, I was struck how similar this was to their behavior outlined in the last case here. Same gaming, same wikilawyering. I don't think a short block will work here based on their Jan-Apr editing history but an indefinite topic ban might. Let them edit in other areas to show they can contribute non-disruptively and have them appeal rather than having the ban simply expire. I'd go with a blanket American Politics ban."

No admin agreed that Anythingyouwant's edit could claim the BLP exemption and there is a civility restriction on the article, making their comments both on their talk page and at the AE request unacceptable. I originally proposed a three month topic ban on Donald Trump but their subsequent comments, along with those of other participants in the request, changed my thinking. In particular, Anythingyouwant asserts and continues to assert above that his one month topic ban "was for an allegedly inaccurate edit summary". Looking at the appeal, members will see that admins unanimously rejected this thinking, with Timotheus Canens stating, "We have indeffed people for shenanigans like this". Given Anythingyouwant had approximately fifty-sixty edits in total between the time the topic ban was imposed and the start of the enforcement request in question, and that they simply stopped editing for over two months, I believed the sanction should not be time-limited so it could be simply waited out but rather indefinite so any appeal had to be bolstered by evidence of constructive contributions in other areas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: I'm not going to re-litigate the January enforcement action and appeal unless the arbs indicate I should do so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden:

Yes.
Yes with strong caveats. The "yes" is not an invitation to claim BLP until every section, paragraph, and sentence is perfectly balanced to an editor's satisfaction. This is not reasonable.

Anythingyouwant was not sanctioned for that edit but for stating, "Wikipedia is the biggest propaganda outfit on Earth, thanks to folks like [MrX]" soon after their return. Hours of editors' time, numerous enforcement requests, and pages and pages of discussion have resulted in the current version of the article. If Anythingyouwant believes that it's blatant propaganda then their view of NPOV is decidedly at odds with the general community and they shouldn't be editing in the area. If it was hyperbole, then the attack came almost immediately after they returned to the area after being forced to take a one month break. If that is acceptable then we might as well revoke the civility restriction and get rid of decorum. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Appeal instructions say this is a possible venue. Probably the best place for this one as WP:AE would largely be a rehash and WP:AN would likely become a mess. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: Are you really arguing that user talk pages are anything goes zones where behavioral expectations don't apply? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: As SBH suggests below, the sanctions were levied for an ongoing pattern of behavior. I stated as much in my initial comment in the request: Given the past sanctions, I am disinclined to overlook "Wikipedia is the biggest propaganda outfit on Earth, thanks to folks like you". This is much like when an editor gets blocked for WP:3RR, reverts immediately after their block expires, and gets blocked again. That single revert in isolation did not earn them the second block - continuing the past behavior did. I've cautioned SPECIFICO about making inappropriate comments in the past (recently, in fact) but if you think enforcement action is needed, open a request at WP:AE. However since this is an Arbcom page, presumably they or their clerks will take action if needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The latest statement by Anythingyouwant is another example of continued misrepresentations. "The comment at my user talk was not unsupported, given that WP:BLP had just been violated, and I deleted the comment anyway when I realized that discretionary sanctions might apply at user talk, just to be on the safe side." No admin agreed that the edit met the WP:3RRNO BLP-exemption criteria and they deleted the comment well after discussion had started about the AE request. [94], [95]. This is not Anythingyouwant deleting the comment "anyway" after having an epiphany and "just to be on the safe side". The deletion came after they were explicitly told multiple times that user talk pages were not free-for-all zones. This is the same type of behavior that got their one week topic ban in January put back up to a month upon appeal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem[edit]

I commented on the AE related to the fact that while one can argue that the edit was resolving a BLP violation, 3RRNO does not consider it the type that is exceptional under 3RR or for any article under a edit-warring DS concern. While I fully agree with the edit, 3RR is pretty clear that edit warring over it was not appropriate. Some type of action was necessary, and AYW's prior record here (the previous 1 month ban in the area) does warrant a longer one That said, the jump from a suggested 3 month topic ban to indef makes little sense based on the AE discussion, particularly given that the edit AYW did was eventually accepted and added to the page after talk page discussion. I feel this is punishing AYW for having a certain POV, which from their edits seems difficult to necessarily identity, outside of the fact they end up not disagreeing with the majority of editors in that space. I do agree their behavior at their previous appeal [96] feels like gaming and agree with how that closed, I'm just not seeing anything like that here. They felt omission of a certain statement violated BLP, did a 1RR to retail it believing they were right per 3RRNO, and then went to the talk page. That's not gaming anything. Some short topic ban is needed, but not an indef. --Masem (t) 23:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the past issues with AYW that MastCell brings up, which includes twice trying to claim 3RRNO exemptions, I think I have to agree an indef in the area is proper at this point. They should know their judgement of what 3RRNO related to BLP does allow from both of those, this case was more of the same. That unfortunately edges on gaming. I will express concerns that nearly all of AYW's BLP concerns are very much valid and important issues (at least three of these cases is where it seems the consensus of editors readily do not want to include denials or refuting of allegations made against BLPs, which BLP policy is pretty explicit about their inclusion), but again, 3RRNO does not have the allowance in there to edit war about. Those BLP issues are for a discussion well outside of AE/ARBCOM. --Masem (t) 05:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

Since I have never edited Donald Trump [97], and I have never edited User talk:Anythingyouwant [98], I have no idea why I'm listed as a party to this request. Unless something tying me to this dispute can be presented, I would ask that my name be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I did comment on AYW's AE action below, but commenting on an AE discussion doesn't make one a party to the dispute which is the subject of that discussion. Allowing AYW to include everyone who commented there is a very bad precedent to set, as it could have the effect of inhibiting people from commenting freely. I would suggest that everyone thrown into the list of parties for that reason alone should be removed, and AYW trouted for adding them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved. I am removing myself from the parties list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MelanieN[edit]

I am an involved editor with regard to the Donald Trump article. I am commenting here since I was pinged by Anythingyouwant. I would like to set the record straight. Anything’s description of my input at the January discussion is incorrect. He claims that I found his two edits “fully permissible” and disapproved only of the edit summaries. The truth is that I described his two edits as a “cute trick” and an “attempt to game the DS sanctions.” His goal was to move material within the article - a move that had been disputed at the talk page and consensus had not been not reached. His method of moving it was, first to delete it as a “challenge by reverting,” claiming the material was riddled with bias and POV pushing - and then to immediately re-add it, without any changes, to the location where he wanted it to be, with an edit summary saying that nobody could put it anywhere else in the article without consensus. I regarded this as basically fraudulent and said so. The fact that he is now trying to re-litigate that situation by blatantly misrepresenting my input does not argue well for a relaxation of his sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. OK, I’ll respond to Anythingyouwant one more time. For starters, when he describes me as having said his move was “fully permissible”, that is not what I said. What I did say is that, generically, making a move in two steps is permissible. (He had been trying to change the subject to “making a move in two steps,” as if that was the only thing people had objected to.) I certainly did not say that his specific move in this case was permissible, because it was not. Whether to move that section, “Public profile”, was under discussion at the talk page, and there was not yet any consensus to move it. If he had simply gone ahead and moved it at that point, he would have been in the wrong. The move would have been immediately reverted and he would have been scolded for making the move while it was still under discussion. So instead he tried to justify the move with deceptive edit summaries. First, he deleted the whole section, claiming that he was “challenging the material by reverting it.” In other words, he was stating that in his opinion the material should be removed from the article. He later doubled down on that claim, saying that his “main objective was to remove disputed material” because it was “riddled” with “biased POV-pushing”.[99] [100](Oh, and I almost missed this: He is now claiming that his real intent was to have the material “selectively scattered chronologically throughout the article.” That’s a new one! I wonder how many more versions of what he was trying to do he can come up with?) But he immediately exposed the “challenged, biased, POV, must be removed!” nonsense as a lie, since he restored the entire section to the article one minute after deleting it. Come on! Either he thought it shouldn’t be in the article, or he thought it should; he can’t have it both ways. Apparently he really thought he could get away with pretending to object to the section one minute, then restoring it somewhere else the next, as a way of carrying out a move that would otherwise have been impermissible. He even thought he could impose his will on the article by invoking the DS to say that nobody was allowed to move it back. This whole episode was worse than gaming the system; it was an attempted scam. The fact that he is still - STILL! - trying to litigate it or justify it shows his true nature and intent. Clearly he is always going to continue with this kind of shenanigans, he will always deny it, he will appeal and appeal, and we will be here again and again, until the community finally gets tired of it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t believe he’s still at it. He still claims that when I said “two-step edits are permissible,” it was the same thing as saying “Anythingyouwant’s edit was permissible”. Which I have clearly and unequivocally stated was not the case; it was not permissible because of the ongoing discussion which he was violating, quite aside from the deceptive edit summaries. His logic is like saying “Crossing the street is permissible, therefore it was permissible for me to cross the street against the red light.” Or how about “It is permissible for me to swing my arm, therefore it was permissible for me to swing my arm and hit you in the nose.” Folks, at this point Anythingyouwant is his own best evidence of the need for sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone missed it, here was his response to me: [101] [102]. I rest my case. --MelanieN (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC) ...and [103] --MelanieN (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And another cute one by Anythingyouwant: In the "Statement by SPECIFICO" section, Mdann removed SPECIFICO's comment as a clerk action. Anythingyouwant then selectively restored part of the first sentence of SPECIFICO’s comment - namely, the part that was a little bit complimentary.[104] Is it permissible for an editor to write in another editor’s section like that, and to manipulate that editor’s comment for their own purposes? Just wondering. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC) P.S. I guess not since Mdann has now reverted it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme[edit]

I am not a party to this dispute, but I did comment at the AE discussion, have made a total of 7 edits to Donald Trump since September 2017, and have participated on the TP of that article. I much prefer editing equine articles where the whole horse is the topic. ^[FBDB] I did request leniency for Anythingyouwant at AE as evidenced by this diff, and will repeat the crux of my comment: "My perception of AYW's attempt to add the denial to the lede was that it was a GF edit based on NPOV and BLP. AYW did go to the article TP in an attempt to discuss the inclusion. I don't think irritating another editor at a TP justifies a block or TB. My interest in this case is more focused on the NPOV argument which I see as being inseparable from BLP. Prior to this case being filed, I posted a tough question on the TP of TonyBallioni hoping to get some thoughtful input. The diff I used in that same discussion included AYW's edit as an example." I quickly learned that AP2 articles can be highly controversial, so stepping over the DS restriction line is not unexpected; however, in this case, I truly believe it was done inadvertently. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points, James J. Lambden. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, Volunteer Marek - perhaps AE and DS are not the best options, especially if it opens the doors to gaming, and stifles improvement/expansion of articles that may have fallen into the clutches of dominant OWN behavior, which almost always has a negative impact on editor retention. It is extremely difficult to save a political article from a dominant POV despite trying to strictly adhere to NPOV. I think a big part of the problem is the ever-present ambiguity in some of our policies and the varied perceptions of editors. I empathize with our admins and what they have to deal with - it is not an easy task to decide who/what is actually at the root of the disruption when one lives under RL time restraints which afford them just enough time to see a limited view of the whole picture. I understand that disruptive behavior is not conducive to a collegial editing environment, and action must be taken. I also understand that it typically stems from content issues. Admins do not focus on content issues so what we really need are content admins (wishful thinking); however, I'm still of the mind that we need to focus more on the root cause rather than the resulting symptoms which may/should open the doors to a bit more leniency. Our job at WP is to maintain the quality in our articles and per NPOV, to assure that significant views are included in our articles, the latter of which has been an effort that is barely a centimeter shy of being a root canal. TBs and blocks to end disruption may have inadvertently favored one POV, an opinion strictly based on appearances, but the results seem to support it. Please prove me wrong because the fence post I'm sitting on is very uncomfortable. Perhaps this data collation will shed more light on this issue. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I was thinking the BLP edit was the reason for Anythingyouwant's indef TB from AP2 but now realize that it was for telling another editor to stay off his TP per this diff, adding what NeilN said above that triggered an indef TB from AP2. Quite frankly, I have been the target of far worse and no action was taken against the offending editors, but that's beside the point. What I don't understand is what justifies an indef from AP2 for something he said on his own TP?? How is it even related? Are we subject to AP2 DS civility sanctions on our own TP? ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading MastCell's well-researched conclusion and Masem's decision in support of it, both of whom I look to for guidance and mentoring on difficult topics, I can now see that this case is much more involved than I first thought and far above my pay scale. While I believe editor retention is important, the indef does not prevent AYW from being able to edit other topic areas which will enable him to turn a new leaf and establish that he is capable of collaborating without disruption. My advice to him at this point is to withdraw this case, respect the indef and work in other topic areas to demonstrate that he is capable and willing to be a productive editor. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden[edit]

Today in an AE complaint against editor "KEC" one of the responding administrator said:

"I think KEC's belief that the edit was supported by consensus was at least defensible and reasonable, even if it's possible it was mistaken. I don't see a need for any action here."

To assist those responding in offering informed commentary, can administrators who commented here (or in the original complaint) please clarify:

Whether in their opinion Anythingyouwant believed he was correcting a BLP violation
Whether in their opinion such a belief is defensible and reasonable

Thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

First, this isn't a "Request for Clarification and Amendment". Is there something unclear about the sanction (which would need clarification) or self-contradictory (which would require an amendment)? No. This is a straight up APPEAL of the sanction. And the place for APPEALS is WP:AE itself.

Second, this is becoming a pattern. Fairly recently another user - Dheyward - also got sanctioned, then appealed to like fifteen different venues (yes, that is a purposeful but illustrative exaggeration), then finally came here and you guys granted his appeal (though it's not really your job to do so, except in extraordinary circumstances). I warned you then this would happen. Anyone who gets sanctioned at WP:AE will now come running to ArbCom with an appeal - if they can't get one anywhere else - which sort of defeats the whole purpose of WP:AE in the first place (which was, if any of you where around long enough to remember, precisely so that ArbCom wouldn't have to deal with this kind of stuff and could concentrate on the "big stuff"). If you persist in second guessing admins at WP:AE (and god knows they make mistakes), what's the point of having WP:AE? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, sure, it is "possible". Still bad practice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the "the user believed it was a BLP issue" issue - I can't recall of the top of my head, so I'm not going to say it was Anythingyouwant specifically without double checking, but there have been users who have tried to WP:GAME both the standard 3RR restriction as well as imposed discretionary sanctions by claiming BLP many many many times before and it didn't fly. Presumably the admins at WP:AE already took into consideration whether or not it was really a BLP issue or whether the user is just making up an excuse. This, in my opinion, is NOT a clear cut BLP issue, it's a judgement call. I see no reason for ArbCom folks to second guess AE admins here. Appeals, if they're going to be heard by ArbCom - since this is what this is - should focus on review of potential procedural errors (was the user notified of DS, was there reasonable consensus of admins, etc.), rather than a re-litigation of the underlying issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, here it is. At least one previous instance where Anythingyouwant tried to do the exact same thing, claim BLP to get his way, when in fact it was pretty clear he was trying to just GAME the DS restriction: "Since Sandstein has asked that I handle this, and there does seem to be agreement that this was not BLP exempt and that Anythingyouwant knew what they were doing, I'll go ahead and resolve this: Anythingyouwant is placed on 0RR for 1 month on Roy Moore and any topic related to the United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017, broadly construed. ". Closed by User:TonyBallioni.

Now, given that this exact sequence of events unfolded before (sans winding up here) what do you think are the chances that when Anythingyouwant made their latest-DS-violating-edit that led to their ban, they were thinking "gee shucks, I can't possibly be violating discretionary sanctions here because this is such an obvious BLP issue no one will ever object by golly!" The dude did exact same thing before and got sanctioned for it. He was trying again (you got to ask him why he though it'd work this time). It didn't work this time either. Hell, if anything he deserves another sanction for trying the same game twice (points off for lack of originality!), just as a lesson to be more creative about his WP:GAMEing in the future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

The issue here is not the diffs provided by Anythingyouwant in their statement, but this AE discussion about Anythingyouwant. Was anything improperly done by admins? At the end of this AE discussion (at the very bottom of the thread), two experienced admins agreed with NeilN and one suggested a softer restriction. No doubts, such sanctions are always a matter of personal judgement (the "discretion"), and the judgement can be different. According to current rules, such sanctions do not require a consensus of admins. Thinking logically, everyone who has been sanctioned on AE should complain to Arbcom in a hope that the consensus of Arbcom administrators will be different from the good faith judgement by a few or a single AE administrator. But of course not everyone runs immediately to Arbcom, because at least some people tend to admit their own mistakes and value time of other contributors.

Should such complaints be encouraged? Yes, if there is an obvious error of judgement by an AE administrator. However, when it happens, the most appropriate way is to make an appeal directly on WP:AE. In this particular case, I think Anythingyouwant knew that his appeal on WP:AE will not be granted because the sanction was a reasonable judgement by several admins, and it would be harder to argue his case here after the decline of appeal on WP:AE. Therefore, Anythingyouwant went directly to Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @Anythingyouwant. Yes, sure, several other admins also took part in this discussion. I never said they did not. There was strong consensus on WP:AE that you made a violation of the editing restriction for the page, but opinions about remedies were partly different, as frequently happens during such discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]

Sanctioning administrator User:NeilN makes it explicitly clear above that AYW was sanctioned for a comment on his talk page. However, since that talk page is not under discretionary sanctions, then the sanction placed as “arbitration enforcement” seems out of process. Many editors, including a couple who have commented here, have certainly made somewhat uncivil posts recently. Are we really going to be sanctioning editors on this basis? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN no that's not what I meant. But the way I understand you, you sanctioned AYW for a comment on his talk page "I am tired of you and your POV pushing." The same type of comments as User:SPECIFICO writes below - "One of the most dogged and resourceful POV pushers and disruptive presences," "diehard...activist," "poster child for NOTHERE editing," "relentless POV-pushing wikilawyer," with "years of misbehavior." Tell me how this isn't a double standard. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter[edit]

I don't know why so many people seem to think that user talk pages are somehow exempt from DS, but, while yes Anythingyouwant's entire talk page isn't under DS, certain edits are per: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Thus, Anythingyouwant's edit on his talk page was certainly about American Politics, and thus under the discretionary sanctions, and under the many other policies we have.

Even beyond the wording, the point of DS is reduce this sort of crap — bad faith accusations of POV pushing, subverting the rules etc— and to instead have have decorum where we can constructively build the encyclopedia with civil discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

Removed by clerks - feel free to rewrite per talk. Mdann52 (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO[edit]

The edit that led to this was soon added anyway to the article by consensus decision. Anythingyouwant erred here and has erred before as have many of us so it seems to me the penalty was excessive.--MONGO 03:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazed the character assassinations going on here, with editors like Mastcell calling Anythingyouwant a liar, saying he's lying, etc., "Anythingyouwant is lying. He's lying. To you. Right here, in the course of trying to convince you that he shouldn't be sanctioned for deceptiveness." and SPECIFICO with their personal attacks as well, stating clearly above that Anythingyouwant, "most dogged and resourceful POV pushers and disruptive presences" "Anythingyouwant is a poster child for NOTHERE editing. He is a relentless POV-pushing wikilawyer." Very odd that some of the people Mastcell seems to call good faith editors I might not feel the same about. Very discouraging.--MONGO 12:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mastcell:, Anythingyouwant addresses this very issue above in their section. I am almost always inclined to agree with your general assessments but this instance could also be a general misunderstanding of MelanieN's meaning during that exchange. Feel that its bit of a stretch to denigrate outright, but I have been wrong before.--MONGO 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]

Several editors have stated that sanctions at issue were imposed because of one or two specific edits (one article edit and possibly one talk page edit; see AYW's original post to this appeal). The admins who assented to the sanctions also cited other factors including "the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and continued jibes on display here" (User:NeilN), "AYWs long history of battleground editing, and for the 'one of the anointed ones' crap" (User:Bishonen), "the aspersions and general battleground attitude on display is deeply unimpressive" (User:GoldenRing), and so on. The impression is that the sanctions were levied for an ongoing pattern of behavior and because briefer or less severe sanctions had proven ineffective, rather than a single edit (or two). But I could be wrong so you Arbcom folks might want to ask the admins themselves. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant:, that was a copy-paste accident. Apologies. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell[edit]

First review some of Anythingyouwant's relevant history:

Found by ArbCom in 2007 (2007!) to have "a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion".
Indefinitely topic-banned by ArbCom in 2011 from abortion-related pages because he had, among other things, "manipulated sources to present a POV" and "manipulat[ed] policy pages to further a point in a dispute."
October 2016: Topic-banned from American politics until the completion of the 2016 US Presidential election, for inappropriately abusing the BLP exemption to edit-war. ([105])
November 2017: 0RR sanction on the topic of the 2017 US Senate special election in Alabama, for intentionally abusing the BLP exemption ("there does seem to be agreement that this was not BLP exempt and that Anythingyouwant knew what they are doing")
January 2018: 1-month topic-ban from American politics for "refusal to understand the proper use of the page restrictions, and for a clear attempt to game them".
Topic ban reduced to 1 week after Anythingyouwant ostensibly acknowledges fault, but then restored to 1 month after Anythingyouwant tried to game his sanction for gaming the system.

So it's well-documented that Anythingyouwant has a recurring issue with trying to game the system, and that he knows, or should know, that his judgement is poor when it comes to invoking the BLP exemption for edit-warring. In that context, his indefinite topic ban (for, again, misusing the BLP exemption to justify editing violations) seems proportionate and appropriate, if not long overdue.

Now look at Anythingyouwant's behavior in this request:

He invokes MelanieN, claiming that she "acknowledged that those two edits were fully permissible, putting side the edit summaries".
In fact, MelanieN called the edits in question "a 'cute trick', a two-part move based on attempts to game the DS sanctions".

These two statements can't both be true; either MelanieN "acknowledged the edits were fully permissible", or she called them out as an attempt to game the system.

Anythingyouwant is lying. He's lying. To you. Right here, in the course of trying to convince you that he shouldn't be sanctioned for deceptiveness.

I see MelanieN also called this out above, more politely than I have, but there is no polite gloss for this, and it's part of a pattern of behavior (which I've linked, in part, above). I don't know why Anythingyouwant seems incapable of engaging forthrightly with his fellow editors, but I'm not sure it matters. This sort of behavior is poisonous to the editing environment, and good-faith contributors deserve to be protected from it. MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: I choose my words carefully, and I don't use words like "lying" unless I feel I can justify them. I provided an example in which Anythingyouwant lied. There is no credible, innocuous explanation for his misrepresentation of MelanieN's position. (Yes, he's doing his usual gamesmanship thing to try to spin it, but seriously; no reasonable person would read MelanieN's comments and come away honestly thinking that she found those edits acceptable.) If someone is lying, then pointing out the lie, with supporting evidence, is not "character assassination". Personally, I'm more bothered by dishonesty than I am by strong language. Does it bother you that Anythingyouwant lied? Or do you not believe that the statement in question was a lie? As for other situations where you feel I'm off-base, you are welcome on my talk page anytime if you'd like to discuss further. Seriously. MastCell ^Talk 20:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fish and karate[edit]

I was messaged by AYW, asking me to come here as a party to the dispute. Not a party, I just commented at AE (and I do see this has already been addressed, and AYW has amended the list of parties). I think a topic ban is entirely appropriate, although I would suggest NeilN may wish to avoid closing AE sanction discussions and implementing the outcome when he has been participating in the discussion. In this instance, it would not have made much difference, as AYW does need to be restricted from editing in areas where he is mentally incapable of maintaining a neutral approach to editing, such as politics; I think indefinite is more than I would have gone for, but it's within the realms of reasonableness, and so the ground for appealing this AE sanction are very shaky. Note that I don't care about the incivility on the talk page, which is a red herring, that should not have been a reason for the sanction, and shouldn't have been listed in the AE submission by MrX, as it just muddied the waters. But we are where we are. This edit was sufficient for the article editing restrictions to be triggered. Their previous shorter-term sanctions clearly did not induce AYW to amend their behaviour, and so a longer-term measure is appropriate. Fish+Karate 09:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki[edit]

I have read some of this incredibly lengthy thread; I'd recommend the committee simply take up American Politics 3 if they feel this appeal has merit. As a separate suggestion, perhaps a "post-2000 American politics" topic area would be beneficial? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Anythingyouwant: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

@Anythingyouwant: Primarily for the reason that you should not be editing another users evidence. If SPECIFICO wishes to amend or rewrite their statement, they are more than welcome to do so themselves. Mdann52 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Decline. Outcome was not outside the scope of reasonable admin discretion at AE. Btw, while this is one possible venue for this kind of appeal, per the AE instructions you'd be better off appealing this kind of thing there. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih, DGG, Newyorkbrad, BU Rob13, Opabinia regalis, and Worm That Turned: Plenty of discussion above, might be time to move this along. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. I've read over this a few times now. Ultimately, like Euryalus, I don't see the sanction as being outside of AE discretion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I agree that the sanction was within AE discretion. AYW, some of your comments here display the battleground mentality you've been criticised for. For instance, you had a choice when I didn't reply to your ping to politely ask me again, but that's not the choice you took. My observation also applies to your last comment today. In any case I would have told you to make the choice yourself and that so far as I could see you were already discussing the January proceeding, so asking about it was simply confusing. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Reviewing all the info given here, I don't see anything that says the sanction was outside AE discretion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline I've read this a couple of times as well and I recall the January AE case. I see nothing here that falls outside admin discretion. Katie^talk 19:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Per Doug Weller. Alex Shih (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. We give administrator's discretion to make such decisions and this is within that discretion. Per Euryalus, if you wish to appeal, try at AE. Worm^TT(talk) 14:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: American Politics 2 (June 2018)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by MrX at 19:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

WP:ARBAPDS

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification Atsme]

Information about amendment request

WP:ARBAPDS

Atsme is topic banned from making any edits relating to Donald Trump, broadly construed.

Statement by MrX[edit]

Greetings. I am bringing this here at the recommendation of several AE admins because it's not well suited to WP:AE. The matter concerns the article talk page participation by Atsme in the American politics topic area, that I believe to be disruptive and damaging to the collaborative editing process. As shown in the small sampling of diffs below, Atsme makes a lot of article talk page comments, a great many of which do not positively contribute to building consensus or resolving content disputes. Many of the comments are classic Whataboutism. Others are just off-topic screeds, diversions, defensive reactions to other's comments, dead horse beating, and attempts at levity.

The most troubling comments are the ones that undermine the credibility of highly-respected sources that are prominently used throughout enwiki. These take the form of characterizing sources like The Washington Post and The New York Times as biased, propaganda, clickbait, biased against Trump, rumor, and gossip. She also has a tendency to falsely refer to verifiable facts as "opinion". Her arguments are frequently based on fringe viewpoints typically found on websites like Breitbart, and are often based on fallacious reasoning.

She makes a disproportionately-high number of comments. In the past six months, more than 7 percent of the comments at talk:Donald Trump have come from her, out of 93 editors who have commented in the same period. That would be fine if she were moving discussions toward consensus or resolution, but that is rarely the case. What usually happens if the she will make increasingly tendentious arguments, and then when criticized for doing so, she gets defensive. Her arguments usually convey a tone of self-appointed WP:POVFIGHTER and frequently contain multiple shortcuts to policies that almost all experienced editors are very well-versed in. She often rehashes arguments that have already been put to rest.

Atsme seems to be a warm and affable person who is rarely uncivil, and who I believe is sincere in her participation in the project. She has made some outstanding contributions to building the encyclopedia in areas outside of American politics, and I have great respect for her for that. It seems though that she has an ideological blind spot which affects her objectivity, and manifests as large amounts of low signal-to-noise ratio commentary.

I am hopeful that Arbcom can deal with this without a full case. I know there are a lot of diffs (and I apologize), but since the behavior is cumulative, rather than incidental, I can't come up with a better way to present this. Sections are roughly arranged in descending degree of concern, and sampling a few diffs should be compelling.

Thank you for your time.

Repeatedly discrediting reliable sources; claiming bias and propaganda in reliable sources (WP:GASLIGHTING)

Using talk pages for discussion unrelated to edits: (WP:TALKNO, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, Whataboutism) [n.b. I excluded her frequent humorous comments]

Dominating discussions with excessive and often incoherent rambling (WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)

November 9, 2017
February 19, 2018
February 22, 2018
February 22, 2018
February 27, 2018 - Not even sure what to call this mess. She made 12 comments, but adavanced the discussion very little.
March 4, 2018
April 22, 2018
June 12, 2018

Although she often complains about clickbaith sources, she is apparently OK with using source like The Daily Caller [106][107], Breitbart [108], World Net Daily [109], Daily Wire, and RedState [110]

WP:POVFIGHTER

December 4, 2017 (User talk page)
February 12, 2018
February 12, 2018
February 22, 2018
February 22, 2018
February 22, 2018
February 26, 2018
March 5, 2018
April 17, 2018
May 13, 2018 - Insists that local consensus is not sufficient for restoring a section heading to the status quo version.
June 18, 2018

WP:LAWYER

Frequently adds multiple, irrelevant policy shortcuts to he comments

November 22, 2017 - POV, NOTNEWS, WEIGHT, BALANCE, SOAPBOX,
May 16, 2018 - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG, WP:TOOMUCH, WP:RS AGE, NOTCRYSTALBALL,
May 14, 2018 - IDONTLIKEIT, BLP, PUBLICFIGURE, CONTENTIOUS LABELS, BALANCE AND WEIGHT
September 1, 2017 - NPOV, V, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL, WP:REDFLAG, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE
February 12, 2018 - WP:RGW, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NEWSORG
February 22, 2018 - WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOTNEWS, SOAPBOX, RIGHTGREATWRONGS
April 25, 2018 - NOTNEWS, NPOV, DUE, BALANCE and OR.
June 2, 2018 - SOAPBOX, UNDUE, NOTNEWS
June 19, 2018 - NPOV, NOTNEWS, ADVOCACY, SOAPBOX

Previous attempts to resolve. (also WP:IDHT)

Numerous attempts have been made to get Atsme to follow WP:TPG and and to participate more constructively in content discussions. She has rebuffed all of these efforts.

August 12, 2017 - Hint
November 18, 2017 - Mild warning
November 18, 2017 - Discussion
December 5, 2017 - Warning
December 12, 2017 - Warning
February 5, 2018 - Request
February 9, 2018 - Hint
March 3, 2018 - Hint
March 17, 2018 - Plea
June 8, 2018 - Request
June 19, 2018 - Mild warning
June 20, 2018 - Hint
June 27, 2018 - Discussion

Misunderstands or distorts policies

May 15, 2018 - Says "material is not necessarily DUE simply because it received "massive coverage" " and seven days later May 22, 2018 contradicts herself.
May 23, 2018 ?
March 20, 2018 - Improper use of rollback in a content dispute. Her explanation [111]
May 5, 2017

Frequently misuses WP:NOTNEWS in content disputes.[112][113][114][115]

Making false claims

May 28, 2018 - "We are talking about calling a US President a racist in WikiVoice," - No one was proposing it, or even suggesting it.

Repeating arguments ad nauseum (WP:REHASH)

Defensiveness (WP:NOTGETTINGIT)

@BU Rob13: Do you speak for the entire committee, or are those your views?- Mr X 🖋 00:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AE does not take cases with more than 20 diffs, and this case can't be made with that few diffs. I brought this here to save everyone the effort of full Arbom case, but it's entirely up to Arbcom to as to whether to adjudicate this here or take on a full a case. My work is done, so it makes no difference to me.- Mr X 🖋 03:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme[edit]

I am respectfully requesting that the admins reviewing this case please forgive me for not being able to respond to this case. I am feeling more hurt by what MrX just attempted to do than I am upset over it. I'm not sure if what Drmies concluded hurt me more...but it cuts to the core. For me to respond to these allegations, I would have to provide diffs showing their bad behavior...we all know how that game is played, but I am not here to hurt other editors, or to try to silence them because I disagree with their POV or the material they've added or removed. I have always honored consensus - I am here to build an encyclopedia - to participate in collegial debates and present reasonable arguments. I believe that is exactly what I have done, and if the admins who are here to review my behavior will look at the full discussions and not just the cherrypicked diffs, I believe they will agree. I have always tried to include RS with my comments, but...again...I am a bit overwhelmed right now. I don't have it in me to fight this because in order to defend myself, it will be at their expense, and I don't have the heart to do that. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't sleep thinking about this very sad state of affairs, and the intent behind it. I don't see how it can be anything else but a deceitful, premeditated plan to eliminate editors they consider the opposition, and because it couldn't be done any other way, MrX chose to game the system, and inundate ArbCom with months of cherrypicked diffs taken out of context to create a false impression. This is clearly a case of WP:POV railroad, thinking it was the only to stop a productive, collaborative editor who never showed ill-will or wished any harm on anyone.

Please keep in mind that the articles in question are subject DS restrictions/1RR-consensus required; therefore, editors have no choice but to participate in relentless discussions on the TP in order to achieve consensus. The process involves nearly every single piece of material that is added or reverted. Of course you will see more input on the TP of those articles, and far more disagreement - just look at the sizes of the Trump articles. The WP:OWN behavior of MrX and others who share his POV, have made the editing environment at those articles very unfriendly with a noticeable resistance to collaborative editing with those whose views differ from their own.

Examples of disruptive behavior, bullying, and incivility

04/22/2018 Drmies encouraging AE
05/06/2018 Drmies f-word bombing and labeling
05/16/2018 Drmies response to the N. Korea deal.
05/17/2018 MrX & his f-word rant
diff - 06/19/2018 Drmies - (RfC) swears angrily at another editor
diff - 06/19/2018 Drmies - (RfC) his chilling response to me & unwarranted threat of a TB
06/23/2018 - MrX - “And why the hell are you quoting Trump, a known liar”
06/26/2018 MrX calling it “bullshit”

There is no indication of any incivility on my part; rather there is an indication of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by MrX and those who support his POV. Worse yet, the threat by Drmies to me in this diff speaks volumes about this case now: "someone somewhere is marking this down to gather evidence for a topic ban”.

05/23/2018 I had to revert MrX because he tried to edit a quote from a RS, which speaks to how he pushes his POV.
05/8/2018 I was the one being gaslighted, & shared my concern with another editor who stopped by offer comfort;
05/8/2018 - my response to Drmies which demonstrates the thought & xtra steps I take in an effort to reach consensus;
User_talk:Atsme/Archive_23#Input_sought - one of the fun interactions I've had with MrX, and why his filing of this case set me back on my heels.
05/05/2018 - an apology from Mpants who now wants me to stop editing political articles

I know RS and the difference between fact & opinion

02/24/2018 - I was pointing out questionable sources
02/24/2018 -
02/16/2018 - need statements of fact, not opinions
diff - MrX joking about someone transcluding a Breitbart article on my TP - a dig against another editor whose views he opposes.
diff - MrX responds to my concerns of media bias, and agrees there is a problem with the current state of the news media. It is nothing like what he is trying to portray about me now.

I tried to avoid this - it cuts deeply - but the deceit and the intent to cause me harm when I've tried so hard to do the right thing was simply overwhelming. I believe the evidence I've provided justifies a TB on all Trump-related articles broadly construed for MrX and Drmies, both of whom have demonstrated an obvious disdain for Trump that effects their ability to edit those articles in compliance with NPOV. Their bias is overwhelming, their behavior is shameful, especially that of an administrator I once trusted, and there are several other editors who harbor the same disdain for Trump who also need to be included in that TB. ^{Atsme📞📧} 09:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen's TB against me was pure retaliation - she imposed the ban right after I posted the diffs. She has threatened me in the recent past, has shown extreme bias toward me dating back to 2015 when she overturned a trout slap at ANI and imposed a 3 month block against me without one diff to support any of the allegations. She just gave a repeat performance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Providing further evidence regarding Bishonen's behavior in the past and how she repeated it again here in retaliation in very much the same manner:
Aug 4, 2015 - Slap with a trout - Failure to identify actionable disruptive behavior other than the acusations back and forth themselves. No good is coming of this. Everyone gets a Trout. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 8:58 pm, 4 August 2015, Tuesday (1 month, 11 days ago) (UTC−5)}}
Aug 6, 2015 (→‎Vandal-like disruption, aspersions and PAs at WP:AVDUCK: Atsme blocked) - pure railroading - not one diff ever presented to show disruptive behavior as what GWH stated above. I don't think Bishonen even consulted him before she did what she did out of retaliation for....see the diffs below - retaliation against me for taking an Abuse of COIN case to ArbCom.
[116] Closed July 13, 2015 - Bishonen used my ARBCOM case as one of the reasons, calling my actions "vexatious litigation”. Look familiar? Her response below is not convincing, and something needs to be done about her behavior. Her ban should be overturned and Bishonen considered for desysopping, an action that should have happened when she blocked in retaliation back in 2015. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12-05-2017 Bishonen showed up at Sandstein's TP after he closed an AE against me for mistakingly reverting a blocked editor. She wanted to overturn Sandstein's decision and TB me from AP2.
12-05-2017 I challenged her request, and explained about Bishonen's past actions against me.
12-05-2017 She decided not to file but stalked me for a while after that...nothing has changed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]

Very disappointing to see this posted here. I would encourage ArbCom, if they are to look into this matter, to look at the whole topic instead of focusing on one editor. For example, over the past year MrX has been very effective removing editors with a different POV than theirs from the topic area. This sort of diff stalking, collecting, and deep diving is somewhat troubling and chilling at the very least. MrX was recently warned about this - see here. Some of the diffs presented here are from a while ago, so it is really disturbing to think there are editors out there holding on to this stuff for months and even years.

Arbcom should dismiss this, or open a full case to look at the entire topic area. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

Commenting purely about procedural aspects, I don't see what the Committee can do here, in the form of an amendment or clarification. This is the sort of thing that AE, based on the DS from American Politics 2, should be able to handle. Now having said that, it has been my recent experience that AE has been failing miserably at dealing with AP2 cases. It tends to look like the AE administrators can't make up their minds about whether or not they are being asked to resolve content disputes, so they keep punting. Sorry to tell you this, but you are eventually going to have to take an AP3 case, and in the meantime, the AP2 content area is a toxic waste dump that does not come down to just one or two editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I value Atsme as a wiki-friend, I think that Bishonen did the right thing here. But nobody should think that the AP2 problems are now solved. There are other editors who are significantly more harmful to the topic area, who have to date not been held to account, and the problems in the topic area are ongoing. In a way, it's almost unfair that Atsme has been singled out here.

In this overall discussion, I cannot emphasize strongly enough how the present situation has arisen through a failure of AE. At least Bishonen has now applied the DS the way that they are supposed to be applied, at least for one editor. But the admins at AE, as a group, really need to take a serious look in the mirror. DS do not mean take a minimalist approach. The entire point of ArbCom issuing DS in a topic area is to empower admins to act quickly and decisively in a topic area where all other forms of dispute resolution have failed. (Hey, this board is for clarification, so maybe ArbCom should clarify that.) After the GMO case was closed, disruption kept right on happening. So a few admins took DS to make WP:GMORFC happen. That was a big reach. And it worked. The GMO content area has been stable and peaceful ever since. Admins: when DS exist, your hands are not tied. And this isn't about a content dispute.

The one way we can avoid an AP3 case is for AE admins to continue to hand out topic bans in AP2. Lots of them.

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Winkelvi[edit]

MrX wrote in the opening of his statement: "I am bringing this here at the recommendation of several AE admins because it's not well suited to WP:AE" I'm curious about (1) What this is supposed to mean; (2) Whether it means administrators have approached him either on- or off-Wiki to lobby him for bringing a case against Atsme here. I would like the statement clarified. I would also like to know if there have been administrators encouraging him to bring a case against Atsme - and if that's the case, (a) it's very troubling that there has been a coordination of attack by admins against an editor, and (b) who are these admins?

For the sake of transparency, this statement needs to be clarified and the community needs to know what communication off-wiki has taken place that was a precursor to this case being brought.

Aside from this, I agree in total with Mr Ernie's statement above. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note It has been brought to my attention that the opening portion of X's statement ("I am bringing this here at the recommendation of several AE admins because it's not well suited to WP:AE") is referring to this discussion at AE. That in mind, someone - preferably MrX - needs to clarify that. As it is, his comments give the impression that administrators have endorsed this case against Atsme. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN That in mind, why is this not really an amendment request rather, what seems to be a backdoor way to bring grievances against another editor and ask for sanctions in violation of the 500 word limit at AE - in other words, is it an abuse of the process? Am I totally off base here or am I seeing this correctly? (I don't want to make accusations if inaccurate) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, a few things you've said below need to be addressed, especially since several who've commented here have mentioned the AP2 articles in general and have suggested topic bans for a number of editors at those articles. The statement I'm going to comment on is this:

"this cynicism toward reliable sources and reputable media leads to an erosion of trust and in a community that wants to produce an encyclopedia we cannot have that. It takes too much time and energy to counter the many, many unfounded allegations, which drags along editors who might otherwise stay out of the area but who know see their Facebook thread reflected in Wikipedia. In return, other editors are chased out of the area because it is just not worth their time and energy"

"cynicism toward reliable sources and reputable media" For one thing, that cynicism runs both ways -- many of the heated discussions at AP2 article talk pages and reversions have been in regard to reliable sources that are considered conservative (overwhelmingly !voted to be removed and/or dismissed) and unreliable sources ala Hollywood gossip sites defended to support questionable content that supports anti-conservative wording/content. Such behavior has definitely assisted in eroding trust as well as a collegial editing environment and didn't help produce a neutral encyclopedia article.
"takes too much time and energy to counter the many, many unfounded allegations, which drags along editors who might otherwise stay out of the area but who know see their Facebook thread reflected in Wikipedia" I couldn't agree more. The arguing, the back and forth, the introduction of trolling-type comments looking for reaction... it's way out of control. Editors use the 1RR as a way to WP:GAME and WP:TAGTEAM does occur. It's all ruined an cooperative editing environment looking for consensus and talk pages have become a place of obstructionism and WP:BLUDGEONing. Not completely, of course, but far too often. And I, too, believe that the attitudes and commentary we see far to often in social media has bled into Wikipedia. It's toxic, plain and simple and WP:NOTAFORUM as well as WP:BLP vios are ignored. By editors and admins alike.
"other editors are chased out of the area" Yes, editors are staying away. But some editors who stay are working very hard to chase away editors trying to keep the behaviors I've mentioned here from happening and articles being ruined with WP:WEIGHT, WP:POV, WP:TONE, and WP:TABLOID/WP:NOTNEWS.

None of this is Atsme's fault. None of this is one editor's fault, or even the fault of a couple of editors -- probably not even most. It's the fault, in large part, of however it all spun out of control. No fingers being pointed by me -- but it has to be solved not by topic banning editors, something more meaningful and long-lasting than a bandaid needs to be applied. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN[edit]

For Winkelvi and others: Previous procedural discussion. No editors were specifically mentioned and I was unsure if a group of editors was going to be reported. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: Admins were not opposed to extending word/diff limits at AE so this not an end run to avoid those limits. That being said, I'm not sure why this is at ARCA instead of being a full case request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies[edit]

"Atsme seems to be a warm and affable person who is rarely uncivil, and who I believe is sincere in her participation in the project. She has made some outstanding contributions to building the encyclopedia in areas outside of American Politics, and I have great respect for her for that. It seems though that she has an ideological blind spot which affects here objectivity, and manifests as large amounts of low signal-to-noise ratio commentary." I couldn't agree more, and the list of diffs, and their analysis, bears this out. I'm sorry it has to come to this, but esp. the constant misunderstanding of fact vs. opinion and the attendant casting doubt on reliable sources (and the very concept thereof) is highly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, for me this is in large part about your attitude toward reliable sources. If it hadn't been for that I might not have weighed in there, but this cynicism toward reliable sources and reputable media leads to an erosion of trust and in a community that wants to produce an encyclopedia we cannot have that. It takes too much time and energy to counter the many, many unfounded allegations, which drags along editors who might otherwise stay out of the area but who know see their Facebook thread reflected in Wikipedia. In return, other editors are chased out of the area because it is just not worth their time and energy. But these things I have said before, in individual threads and subthreads, and they are frequently answered only with an attempt at levity--and then we do it all over again. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Winkelvi, I am not aware of people using Hollywood gossip sites (I am not quite sure what those are--gossip tabloids like EW?) in these articles. Nor am I aware of editors dismissing reliable "conservative" sites, and I won't stand for it: I have no patience for poor sourcing, no matter from which side--not on Facebook, and certainly not here. But if what is being suggested here is that this case against Atsme is without merit because everyone is doing it ("bad people on both sides", I dispute that: it is not for many editors that one can draw up such a long list of edits that counter policy, thwart progress, disrupt editorial processes. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish[edit]

Concur with Tryptofish (and with the topic-specific comments in Mjolnirpants's comment page). It's not just a couple of editors, and it is across a large number of articles. I've gotten to where I studiously avoid entering the topic area other that to quickly post a !vote in an RfC I get from WP:FRS, then leave quickly. Even aside from factional PoV-pushing and a general degradation of civility, there's a massive WP:NOT#FORUM / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY problem. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC); revised: — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, about the Atsme stuff: Fyddlestix correctly articulates the problem with all the "NPOV and NOTNEWS and FRINGE" stuff. We have policy shortcuts for good reasons; the problem isn't in using them, it's in repetitively ignoring arguments against the editor's personal [mis]interpretations of the policies and guidelines in question. That said, I agree that the editor is productive in other areas. As noted above, I don't think the problems is this topic area are particularly to do with this editor, though. Un-disclaimer: I'm a political centrist, so I'm not taking an ideological side in this mess.. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]

My full statement to the Arbs is located here.
Atsme is one of a very (very) small number of Wikipedians I would like to consider my friend, but I strongly urge the arbs to take this case. I have written my entire response here, so as not to post a giant wall of text on this page. I strongly encourage the arbs to read it in it's entirety before deciding whether or not to take this case.

Atsme, I hope you don't take my support here as a betrayal, because it's not. You are not the only editor I think should get the hell out of AmPol, and I don't think you're entirely to blame for why you should get out. So I encourage you to take my advice: let the Arbs take this case to try and fix the cesspool that is AmPol, but in the meantime, do as I did and just unwatch every directly political page on your watchlist. At the very least, doing so would essentially remove any reason to sanction you, regardless of what ArbCom thinks of the evidence above. If you don't think you can do that, or you can't accept that you should, then I'm afraid I would need to strongly support any proposed topic ban for you. Please don't make it come to that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Thank you for taking note of that. In all honesty, I really think that all that's needed is for a few admins to wade into the swamp, ban hammers swinging. Done right, it would solve the problem. Done poorly, it would still be a step in the right direction. I'd be completely on board with doing an AP3 case, if that's what it took. But something really needs to be done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: That apology was for me blowing up at you, telling you that I'd lost all respect for you and ignoring you for several days. The things I said about your arguing tactics prior to that and since then are all things I stand by: Your argumentation in political articles has -in my experience- overall been unoriginal, illogical, polemical, ill-informed and ultimately ineffective. You know very well that anti-Trump POV pushing pisses me off just as quickly and thoroughly as pro-Trump POV pushing, and that I'm more than happy to say good things about something I despise, so long as they're true. I could have been convinced of a lot of things, but you ultimately failed to ever make a good case. Even when we were in agreement on something, such as the existence and troubling nature of an Anti-Trump POV-pushing faction, or individual matters like the inclusion of the donation of office space to the pro-African American group on the racial views page, I rarely commented on or added to your own arguments because I found them weak, and wanted to distance my own from them.

Meanwhile, we've interacted over dozens of smaller issues at user talk and a few bigger things, as well. In every one of those cases, you struck me as a competent, rational and very thoughtful editor. In the end, it was like there were two people behind your account; the lovely (and I'm sure, devastatingly beautiful) lady who knows how to keep a conversation heading towards a consensus and has a keen eye for improving this project, and the partisan pro-Trump shill who repeats arguments from Breitbart ad nauseum and responds to any legitimate criticism with deflection. I really, really like that first person, and want to see more of her. She's the one I apologized to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

I am unsure as to why MrX received the advice to bring this complaint here, as it obviously seems to be suited to AE as it has been presented here.

I've read the full statement by MjolnrPants linked to just above, and they certainly have a valid point, that the American Politics subject area is a quagmire that drives away editors and needs to be cleaned up. However, I disagree that this requires a full arbitration case, and I can't imagine there's any great enthusiasm on the party of the community -- or Arbcom, for that matter -- for an AP3 case. I do agree with cleaning up the subject area, though, and a start on that can be made by dealing with individual editors who may be part of the problem. If these editors are topic banned, it would, presumably, reduce the number of disputes, and would send a message to other disputatious editors.

So, the end result is that I fall in with the idea that this request is not properly suited to ARCA, since it involves a single editor, and is not calling for specific changes in the discretionary sanction regime. It seems clearly to be an AE case and should be closed here and brought there, as should any similar complaints regarding other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word to day that I think that determining the boundaries of a "Donald Trump, broadly construed" topic ban, should one ever be issued, would be extremely difficult, as the controversies surrounding Trump, his policies and politics, his appointees, his relations with Congress and the Courts, and, not the least, the ongoing investigation of possible wrongdoing connected to his Presidential campaign, have fairly well overwhelmed almost everything else in current American politics and become the central issue of the moment. Although American Politics discretionary sanctions have the boundary of being post-1932, the actual active hot spots that cause the problems pointed out by a number of editors all really revolve around Trump and current issues, so that a "Donald Trump, broadly construed" topic ban becomes, in essence, an American Politics topic ban. Since that is the case, it seems to me better just to issue post-1932 American politics topic bans instead of Trump topic bans, to prevent gaming, and also to avoid the problem of disputatious editors simply slipping back in time to create the same chaos around Barack Obama, the Bushes, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyddlestix[edit]

Procedural questions aside, I'd just like to encourage admins/arbs to not be too quick to dismiss this and to take the time to look at the pattern of behavior and how much disruption it's caused over time. Atsme really does have difficulty accepting RS as RS when it comes to the AP area, and a tendency to repeatedly spam WP:POLICYSHORTCUTS as if they were an automatic "i win" button in AP debates, while ignoring other editors' earnest explanations of why the policy might not apply/why it might not be that simple (ie, IDHT). This is a pattern of behavior that has remained unchanged for a long period of time, despite repeated pleas/warnings from others - this RFC from over a year ago, for example, shows much the same type of disruptive behavior displayed in MrX's more recent diffs. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add: I agree with others' comments that the whole topic area is a bit of a shit-show: if arbcom wants to take on an AP3 case to resolve the broader issues, more power to them, but that is a massive undertaking and a huge challenge. If not, then the fact that the roof is on fire doesn't mean you should ignore the gas leak in the basement: I'd echo BMK's suggestion that even if taking care of one problem doesn't solve all our problems, it's a start and a step worth taking. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID[edit]

I suggest you turn this into an actual case request, as this is not new behaviour on Atsme's part, and it has never been limited to American Politics, as Atsme either has a competence issue (they dont just have a problem with NPOV and sources, they have had ongoing issues with the BLP as well), or a deliberate misunderstanding of policies and guidelines when other editors disagree with them. When you have problems going on for over 3 years, its not going to be suited to an AE request - as they usually result in a short block/ban from a topic. And while AN can (and does) handle ongoing editor behavioural issues, its probably not suited in this case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, the link I have included above is the discussion Atsme is referring to RE Bish. I would suggest people read the comments there by Guy especially. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki[edit]

This should be a case request and not at ARCA. I assume the clerks will move this if there is interest in a case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a case: I don't see a strong need for an "American Politics 3" ARBCOM case at this time. Content disputes are often very heated in the area, and the project would benefit from several editors observing a page-ban from Donald Trump and its talk page. But that can be handled under existing discretionary sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding clarification: I feel there should be a generally-understood scope for a topic-ban on "Donald Trump, broadly construed"; when these have been issued (as opposed to a page-ban or a full AP2 topic ban) they have turned into excessive wiki-lawyering. I have not been able to come up with any specific proposal that is an improvement, and the committee may want to simply discourage the use of a "Trump TBAN", and that admins should use a full AP2 topic-ban when that is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen: topic ban placed[edit]

I don't see anything preventing me from acting on MrX's diffs per the AP2 discretionary sanctions, no matter where the diffs have been filed, so long as I've seen them. I have therefore topic banned Atsme indefinitely from post-1932 American politics. The ban is a regular discretionary sanctions ban per single admin discretion, and can be appealed at AN, AE or ARCA in the usual way. It can be appealed right away, certainly, but after that, no more frequently than every six months. I thought at first a topic ban from Donald Trump and related pages might do it, but Beyond My Ken's argument here against Donald Trump bans convinced me against that. I institute this ban per all MrX's categories: wikilawyering, long-time persistent resistance to good advice, repeating arguments ad nauseum, filibustering and dominating discussions without bringing them forward, and, most of all, for repeatedly discrediting reliable sources. Drmies has explained very well the harm the last point does. Not all MrX's diffs are impressive, but together they paint a pretty appalling picture of an editing pattern that drains the time and energy of other users and is a persistent negative on talkpages. I should say that Am Pol is no rosegarden even if we disregard Atsme's input, and probably won't be one even if my ban is upheld. Several people have recommended an AP3 case to deal with the chaos on Trump-related pages. Personally, though, I feel that AP2 does give admins the ability to act decisively. Anyway, whether or not such an arbitration case is brought, or indeed an individual case to deal with Atsme's Am Pol editing, I don't see why I shouldn't try to take care of this gas leak. As Fyddlestix says, it's a start and a step worth taking.[117] Atsme is an OTRS volunteer; I believe this topic ban precludes her from having anything to do with e-mails that concern American politics, but that's a little too arcane for me; perhaps, as long as we are on the ARCA page, the arbitrators would like to clarify that matter?

I too want to express my regret. Atsme is a fine contributor in other areas, and I'm a great admirer of the photographic art she contributes to the project. Like several previous years, I've voted for one of her amazing pictures in the ongoing Commons Picture of the Year contest. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Alex Shih: Atsme rather unexpectedly posted a full response, 12 hours after having originally stated that "I am respectfully requesting that the admins reviewing this case please forgive me for not being able to respond to this case", and "I don't have it in me to fight this because in order to defend myself, it will be at their expense, and I don't have the heart to do that". While I was fiddling with my own post preparatory to hitting "Publish", it turned out she did after all have the heart to call for topic bans for MrX and Drmies, in a post that edit conflicted me. Of course I read it (that was the nine minutes) but it didn't change my mind. I'm not going to argue with you, Alex, as to whether that reflects badly on me or not. So heated and polarized as discourse in the area is, I naturally expect criticism from some users. You started with saying "personally I think" and then segued into a generalizing passive: "is not going to be perceived well". I could wish you stayed with your own, in fact personal, perceptions and the active voice, rather than speaking for — the community? the committee? I'm not sure, because with the vagueness of the passive, one never knows. As for the ARCA request remaining open, I completely agree. It's not like I placed the sanction in any sense per ARCA (how could I?), and more things than a possible topic ban have been discussed here. My post was intended more as a courtesy notice, to explain to people watching the discussion that the situation is now a little different. It needn't affect the arbitrators, or affect anybody who wishes to request arbitration. Thank you for clarifying the OTRS matter. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by MONGO[edit]

Well, if an arbcom case were opened, not sure where to begin. The problem with any politics, especially the most recent ones, is all we really have are news clips, written almost always in an audience satisfying manner, as sources. Of course these sources, if we are talking about major news networks, are deemed reliable. But they are, a great number of them, also geared to grab attention, not peer reviewed and lack the journalistic integrity of scientific papers. This sourcing for recent politics is going to suffer the inevitable bias of writers who are seeing things through the lens of immediacy, and not through the lens of hind sight. The inevitable outcome is articles about recent events and people that are far below quality levels of the website's best articles. Arguing, even forcefully, about whether a news feed is neutral is, a worthy effort. Comparing subpar articles to FA level articles is a worthy effort. Fighting to make sure articles, especially BLPs, are neutrally covered, is a worthy effort. I write fighting in a figurative way...in that protecting BLPs is paramount and I have long felt very disturbed when editors clearly state, not only in words but also in actions, how much they have a distaste for a subject, then turn around and blatantly fight to add all the negativism they can and work to eliminate all the positives they can, and use noticeboards to try and eliminate their editing adversaries and the same noticeboards to defend their editing allies. But far more chilling and despicable than that, is when those in positions of higher trust and power, also insult, ridicule and bully those they disagree with politically both on the article talkpages and the user talks and noticeboards as well. Indeed, were an arbcom case filed, not sure where to even begin as the problems are so pervasive here and some actions so obvious, that any neutral party recently arrived at this website and seeing how this all unfolds would surely declare that all this is insanity and fully noncompliant with any semblance of neutrality or fairness.MONGO (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG[edit]

AFAIR, one upon a time (when I regularly used to close RFC(s) in the topic-area), I've asked Atsme to step down from APOL, (voluntarily), for the very reasons that have been mentioned above, (quite many times by multiple users).She seems to have a good-faith but fatal misunderstanding of key policies and is too willing to stick to extremist interpretations of policies which often reaches to the level of extreme bludgeoning and tendentious debating.That, she paid no heed and had continued in her ways, I'm afraid Bishonen's T-ban is well-deserved.
- As someone who considers Atsme to be one of the most polite and resourceful editor over here, I regret to post the above statement but the T-ban ought to do some real good.
I disagree with Alex about the perception(s) of the T-ban.
Whilst Atsme claims to have got some history (INVOLVED-->??) with Bish, I fail to spot any relevant issue(s), per our policy.∯WBG^converse 12:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alex:--I was careless to put the second part in the same line. Sorry,∯WBG^converse 13:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker[edit]

Although initial reaction from Rob, et al. was understandable, it's time to realize this has moved on, well passed that.

Atsme has accused a person, and relevant here, an admin of stalking[118] and abusing admin status (an admin action, ban, predicated on the diffs in this very filing by Mr. X). Per WP:NOTBUREAU, treat this as an appeal of a ban to be heard here, or the ctte should motion it into a case. DO NOT send this anywhere else for more (disruptive) process. You are the only ctte set-up that deals with precisely this stuff. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

If the situation is too complex for AE, it’s too complex for ARCA. Your two options are to file a report at AE or to file a case request, in my opinion. For now, I decline to comment on the merits of the report to avoid prejudicing a potential discussion at AE. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I can’t speak for other arbitrators, only myself. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BU Rob13; if this is too complex for AE, then the only option is to file a full case request. I understand why it's being taken here: Like Tryptofish said, it's difficult for many AE administrators to make up their mind in this topic area (about whether or not the dispute is related to content or user conduct). But if the purpose of not filing a full request is to not upset a certain editor, filing this request in the form of a full case request without actually filing one makes little sense to me. Removing Atsme from the Donald Trump topic area may reduce some of the issues in these American politics discussions, perhaps. But I think there is a emerging sentiment here that this involves more than just one editor; WP:ARBAP2#Neutrality and sources is the key issue here I think, and the principle as currently worded is far from sufficient in my opinion, and a better principle/remedy is likely needed to better deal with persisting issues in American politics pages, and to encourage more administrators to work on mediating disputes in this topic area. Alex Shih (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Bishonen, OTRS is governed by a separate body in which I do not believe the English Wikipedia community have any jurisdiction; you can certainly make the recommendation to meta:OTRS#Administrators. No comments in regards to the topic ban, but personally I think enacting such a discretionary sanction 9 minutes after Atsme posted a full response ([119]) is not going to be perceived well. It is definitely within your discretion as uninvolved administrator however, but this ARCA request should probably remain open to allow for more input and discussion. Alex Shih (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Winged Blades of Godric, I am not sure if I mentioned anything about involvement; I was surprised to see Atsme responding after initially declining to respond, and equally surprised to see the topic ban enacted right after her follow up post. That was the sum of my thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also with Rob - this should be at AE or a case request. I see a lot of discussion already (12 editors not counting MrZ or Atsme), mainly either saying it should go to AE or that a case request be made, or that the single editor involved, Atsme, be dealt with by someone. That's now happened. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to pile on and agree with Rob. This case needs to be handled as a case request or at AE itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Rob. Katie^talk 13:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. In a self-serving way, I can appreciate the intention to save us the efforts of a full case, but if this cannot be resolved at AE then a case seems warranted. Mkdw ^talk 16:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite agree with the reasoning above - "too complex for AE" means "too complex for self-selected volunteers who aren't actually obliged to do fuck all", whereas "too complex for ARCA" means "too complex for the people who specifically volunteered for and were elected to deal with complex problems and are as obliged to do things as anybody can be in an internet hobby". But I do agree with the conclusion that ARCA as a venue is a poor fit for this problem, especially following Bishonen's topic ban. (I agree with Bishonen's comments above that Atsme is a nice person and an excellent editor on other topics, and suspect that having to step away from editing about American politics for awhile would be, for just about anyone, a blessing in disguise.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, without prejudice to Atsme's right to appeal the topic-ban imposed against her in the usual way (though I suggest she allow things to settle down for a few days before deciding whether she really wants to). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Atsme topic ban appeal (August 2018)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Atsme at 18:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Indef topic ban;

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

T-ban decision by Bishonen
DS remedy per DARCA case filed by MrX that resulted in Bishonen's independent action

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Information about amendment request

T-ban decision by Bishonen

Repeal and remove from the log - as an involved administrator imposed it

DS remedy per DARCA case filed by MrX that resulted in Bishonen's independent action

Vexatious filing

Statement by Atsme[edit]

I am here to appeal my t-ban after taking some time off for introspection, and to analyze the many diffs MrX presented in his case against me. I published the results at User talk:Atsme/RVW. This has been a difficult case for me because I once held MrX in high regard; however, his accusation that I have an ideological blindspot is, in and of itself, evidence that he believes his own ideology is superior, and I consider that to be detrimental to the project. His case against me was devastating as my initial reaction shows but I have since learned from it.

I’m sure we can all agree that sanctions are not intended to prevent free and candid discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think civil disagreement while seeking consensus would be grounds for a sanction, or that suggesting consistency with MOS or using humor here and there to defuse tense situations would be grounds for sanctions. Articles with DS/1RR-consensus required restrictions naturally increase discussion, and one can expect lively debates because reverted editors tend to experience higher levels of frustration.

Administrators are expected to exercise good judgment, and respond flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. They should carefully analyze behavior without preference or bias, and determine if a remedy has been violated, or if the case and associated preliminary warnings were vexatious. Accused editors are customarily given an opportunity to defend themselves, but above all, they should not have to deal with intimidation, threats, or enforcement by an involved administrator. Unfortunately, none of the aforementioned received proper consideration in my case as the following diffs will demonstrate.

MrX

MrX presented a compilation of cherrypicked diffs taken out of context, grouped them with prepended aspersions, exaggerations and misrepresentations in his ARCA case against me. It is patterned behavior used to rid himself of opposition. (Note: I have many more diffs that establish the pattern if needed)

March 18, 2015 - "The rest of the initial statement by MrX appears to be fairly standard Wikipedia style mud slinging where some fairly innocuous diffs and somewhat irate statements are presented as if they were "teh [sic] worst thing ever!!!!". It's hyperbole meant to appeal to emotion and prejudice, rather than a well substantiated request.”
June 29, 2018 “….I'd be inclined to warn MrX about misrepresenting others contributions out of context, which is shockingly bad faith.”
Juy 9, 2018 - ‘’You have every right to challenge a close. You do not have any right to characterize good-faith disagreement on process as "wikilawyering”.’’

MrX was aware there was neither a smoking gun nor clear evidence of disruption worthy of a t-ban in my case.

Talk:AE June 27 2018, MrX stated: “In other words, there are not 20 smoking gun diffs, because the case doesn't involve edit warring or egregious personal attacks.”
EdJohnston: "If there are no smoking guns, I wonder if you have a case at all."
ARCA June 29 2018 “Not all MrX's diffs are impressive…..”

Disruptive behavior by MrX for comparison purposes

April 17, 2018 - intimidation
April 17, 2018 - vio of WP:TALKNEW - added my user name in the section title, another editor removed it. Consensus supported my position to remove the material.
May 17, 2018 - incivility, self-aggrandizing
June 23, 2018 - disruptive behavior
June 23, 2018 - demands that editors cite policy, then criticizes them when they do
June 23, 2018 - bullying and intimidation
June 26, 2018 - profanity
Jan 3, 2018 - NOTFORUM
Jan 3, 2018 - criticizing RS (refer to the accusations he made against me and compare the diffs)
Jan 3, 2018 - says media is sensationalizing a “nothingburger”
May 22, 2018 - critical of WSJ as a source
June 29, 2018 - said to not put much stock in Newsweek
May 14, 2018 - POV pushing based on OR
May 16, 2018 - his IDONTLIKEIT prod which led to his filing an AfD
June 18, 2018 - defends anti-Semitic slur at AE
June 30, 2018 - his duty to RIGHTGREATWRONGS - ‘’”….highlighting that the dark grays are misbehavin'. A lot.”’’ <— the “dark grays”?

Bishonen - an involved administrator

The following will demonstrate that there was a lack of urgency for Bishonen to impose a t-ban which she inadvertently admits in her statement below. The ARCA case was only 12 hrs old, and her action against me was retaliatory and had a chilling effect, as it followed within 9 min after I posted the 1st phase of evidence in my defense which including diffs of incivility against her fellow admin.

Relevant excerpts from Statement by Bishonen:

"I should say that Am Pol is no rosegarden even if we disregard Atsme's input, and probably won't be one even if my ban is upheld."
"Atsme rather unexpectedly posted a full response,…."
"…it turned out she did after all have the heart to call for topic bans for MrX and Drmies, in a post that edit conflicted me."
''I’m not going to argue with you, Alex, as to whether that reflects badly on me or not. So heated and polarized as discourse in the area is, I naturally expect criticism from some users."

July 31, 2015 - AN/I case I filed against 3 editors who were being highly disruptive at WP:AVDUCK. NOTE: there were no diffs presented by my accusers to support the aspersions cast against me
Aug 1, 2015 - Bishonen participated in the boomerang
Aug 1 2015 - her bias surfaced in a vehement manner
Aug 3, 2015- my response to her aspersions
Aug 3, 2015 - involved editor's 2nd alert on her TP
Aug 3 2015 She said: “Please note, Atsme, that my pinging you here isn't aimed at bringing you to my page;” <—undeniable bias, and not how admins are expected to behave
Aug 3, 2015 - my response to her ping
Aug 3, 2015 - she was disappointed the case was going nowhere, suggested another case targeting me, and that someone “uninvolved” should close the open AN/I case
Aug 4 2015 - I responded to another editor on her TP
Aug 4, 2015 - she told me not to post on her TP
Aug 4, 2015 - I agreed to honor her request, asked her to stop stalking me
Aug 5 2015 - ANI close by an uninvolved admin;
Aug 6 2015 - she shows up at my TP casting more aspersions, and I'm again forced to defend against her aggressive behavior
Aug 6 2015 she overturned the close in order to enforce her preference, and blocked me for 1 month when the only legitimate block on my log was a 36 hr 3RR back when I was a newbie.

Further evidence of Bishonen’s involvement

July 31 2015 - an editor added a Monty Python caption that I reverted, and a suspicious IP restored
Aug 1 2015 - Bishonen's snarky reference to that caption
Aug 1 2015 - ATG alerted her to my question on Alison's TP, Bish showed up and responded with sarcasm
Sept 20 2015 - Her reaction to ATG’s retirement a month later
March 5 2016 - ‘’(→‎Result concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: ...oppose... oppose... falls off the chair.)’’ Note: JPS has had numerous IDs.
March 5 2018 - concerns about threatening admin actions from joke alt accts.
May 8 2018 - Bishzilla puts little Giano in her pocket for safe-keeping.

Aug 2017, Bishonen appeared at AN3 for this one case while she was on a semi-break, and of course, it was the case I filed

Aug 5 2017- says she's on an indefinite semi-break…."
Aug 5 2017 - (burnout)
Aug 13 2017 - I filed for edit warring and disruption, mentioned potential sock activity
Aug 14 2017 - Bishonen appears from her semi-break for this one case: "I'm surprised to see Atsme suggesting that two experienced editors "may even be one in the same for all I know". Usually we only get that kind of silliness from new users, and it does you no favours, User:Atsme.” <—showed her preference to those 2 editors and was biased toward me
NOTE: Of the 2 editors I filed against, one was CU blocked - different time, unrelated case; the other was investigated.
Aug 14 2017 - asked her to recuse
Aug 14 2017 - Her edit summary (→‎Based on history: I'm on semi-break, but if you continue to waste constructive editors' time and patience in the way you've been doing I'll take the time to topic ban you from American politics.) <--- Note: the article in question was a BLP not subject to AP2.
Aug 14 2017 - Admittedly, emotions got the best of me because she called my case frivolous and cast aspersions against me yet again.
Aug 14 2017 - unrelenting
Aug 14 2017 - warning to t-ban me from AP2 over a BLP that is not subject to AP2 DS
Aug 14 2017 - my response
Aug 14 2017 - she returned to my TP and posted yet another warning about BLP sanctions which actually have since been updated at that article to include "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour" as an added DS restriction, but no AP2 DS.

Floquenbeam, allow me to clarify. I intended for the diffs MrX used against me - which I published with an analysis at User talk:Atsme/RVW - to be used as a comparison to the diffs I included here. I hope the arbs will take the time necessary to compare the two behaviors before they decline this case, and at least help me understand why they believe my behavior was worthy of a t-ban as compared to his. Am I expected to adjust my behavior to be more like that of those not being t-banned? Bishonen also pointed out in her statement during my case that my t-ban would not stop the disruptive behavior at those articles - isn't that the purpose of a t-ban - to stop/prevent disruption to the project? If her action did not prevent disruption, why was I singled out by an involved admin? I think my evidence speaks volumes. It does not surprise me to see admins and editors I have a history with to show up here to defend those in their camp. All I asked is for the arbs to review the evidence, compare the two behaviors, confirm the involvement and explain to me why I was singled out. Is that too much to ask? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, you have already demonstrated your inability to judge me without bias when you misinterpreted my adherence to NPOV in this diff and then said the hurtful things you said to me here when I asked for help. I'm sorry, but it's just not appropriate for you to sit in judgment of me when those 2 diffs alone demonstrate how you really feel. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, RickinBaltimore, Premeditated Chaos - can I withdraw this appeal before it gets any further?? I have been misunderstood, but take full responsibility for that so how do I withdraw it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan - do we not allow time for sleep? It's not like I've filed at ARCA before and know the ropes. We've only had 3 arbs comment out of how many? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX[edit]

Statement by Bishonen[edit]

As the banning admin, I think it's appropriate to leave the consideration of whether or not Atsme's topic ban should be lifted to the arbitrators. My rationale for placing the ban on 29 June 2018 can be seen here and here. At this time I only want to say I don't understand Atsme's claim that I'm an involved admin wrt her, and also don't understand her case (?) against MrX. She has been insisting I'm involved since at least 2015, but I've never understood it, and the diffs she posts above seem irrelevant, some of them wildly so. Bishonen appears from her semi-break? Bishonen said "Fuck" when Andy the Grump retired? Bishzilla puts little Giano in her pocket for safe-keeping [sic]? Seriously, what? See WP:INVOLVED. I can't find any diff in that list that suggests I'm involved wrt Atsme, let alone that my admin actions are "retaliatory" (?). I don't understand the diffs purporting to show bad behaviour by MrX, either. How do they make his filing of an ARCA case against Atsme inappropriate? OMG, I see he, too, has been guilty of "profanity" — though less gravely than me — he has said "bullshit".[120] What does any of it have to do with the price of tea in China? Bishonen | talk 19:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Floquenbeam[edit]

The stuff about Bishonen seems silly enough that I won't comment on it. Sorry, Bish. (well, ok, one comment: pocketing Giano?! what the?!) But I do want to point out - not as a rhetorical gambit, not as a gotcha, but as a real, honest observation/complaint - that all of the diffs regarding Mr.X, an editor with whom she frequently crossed swords in the AP topic area, have nothing to do with an "appeal". This portion of her appeal here should be considered a violation of her topic ban, clearly attacking an AP opponent when she's topic banned from AP, superficially masquerading as an appeal. We need to stop people from doing this. An appeal should be an appeal, not a free, sanction-immune opportunity to attack an opponent in an area she is otherwise topic banned from. I realize that a sanction will be characterized by her as "punishment for appealing", but having to deal with that kind of spin should not prevent someone from clearly and strongly discouraging this kind of games-playing. I suggest allowing her to remove this request, and give her time to create one that has a greater than 2% chance of succeeding, and that does not attempt to attack MrX. If she says she wants to remove this, I won't mind if my comment here goes down the memory hole too; I would hope MrX and Bish wouldn't mind either, tho I can't speak for them. Of course, I have a feeling the Arb bureaucracy won't like a simple removal, or others will start to comment soon and make the suggestion moot, but it's worth suggesting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Gulutzan[edit]

It's been a long time since Bishonen called an editor "you little shit" but I'd like to address whether Bishonen issues bans inconsiderately, with an example from during a dispute between two editors about calling a person a climate change denier (a subtopic that Bishonen had once edited). 11:16 Bishonen sent a DS/alert to Editor#2. 15:48 Editor#2 reverted to restore some tags. 15:50 Editor#2 on the talk page asked the person who inserted the tags whether it's okay. 16:35 Bishonen banned Editor#2 "for persistent disruptive editing on Myron Ebell and its talkpage" with "... no input on talk" (which was incorrect). So for this one post-alert edit Editor#2 got indefinitely banned not just from Myron Ebell but from climate change broadly construed. I hope administrators see this as confirmation that Bishonen bypasses usual procedures too quickly. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding only to SarekOfVulcan's comment: what I said is verifiable and I see nothing worth adding. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan[edit]

I think Peter left a bit of history out of his banned-for-one-edit narrative above: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell&offset=20161110160000&action=history&tagfilter= --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe that it's too late for a withdrawal at this point. 22 hours ago was the time for second thoughts. This would be an attempt to avoid scrutiny. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

If Peter Gulutzan believes that Bishonen has a history of misapplying their authority as an admin, then Peter Gulutzan should file a desysop request at Requests for Arbitration. If they don't have the evidence to support such a request, then their coming here with (half-a-)story intended to besmirch Bishonen's reputation should be removed from this amendment request as totally irrelevant. As Floquenbeam points out above, this is not, and should not be, a free-fire zone for past disputes which have no connection to the current matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki[edit]

Hopefully the clerks will clear up some of this off-topic nonsense regarding Peter Gulutzan.

Whatever the nature of Atsme's appeal, it should be declined. The topic-ban was imposed exactly as the committee intended discretionary sanctions to be imposed. Attempting to continue a disagreement with MrX demonstrates the motivation for those sanctions, an appeal based on continuing that argument should never be successful in this forum. I'd recommend no action against anyone for any TBAN violations in this thread so far. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: - there's been plenty of scrutiny. A withdrawal merely saves everyone some time and dignity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000[edit]

An appeal based solely upon attacking both the original filer and the implementing admin rarely succeeds for good reason. I don’t see any acceptance of behavioral problems for any of the numerous diffs. We need some reason to believe a change in behavior will occur. (Involved as I’m certain I was a part of some of the discussions related to the diffs.) O3000 (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG[edit]

Decline per Floq's commentary.A host of irrelevant diffs about Bish's activities and some other points, that leads to an impression of her utilising this board to sanction MrX.∯WBG^converse 05:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman[edit]

Decline on procedural and substantive grounds. The section "MrX" in the filing is both fails WP:NOTTHEM and is borderline harassment of the editor who submitted the original request that led to the topic ban. ARCA is not a place to carry on grudges. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies[edit]

Well, it really starts with a non sequitur: "his [Mr. X's] accusation that I have an ideological blindspot is, in and of itself, evidence that he believes his own ideology is superior"--no, it is not. That does not follow at all, and it signals that there is an attitude that falsely claims that all positions, all opinions are equally worthwhile just because someone holds them.

I had a look at some of the Bishonen diffs, which are meant to prove that Bishonen is partial--it led me to Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, where Atsme claims a somewhat humorous caption, which reasonable follows another Pythonesque caption, is "gibberish" (and "vandalism" in a subsequent IP edit, followed by a request for oversight--oversight of what, Bishonen rightly asks, and somehow this comment on Bishonen's part is "snarky" and grounds for the INVOLVED accusation. No. The committee should decline this appeal, which is little more than NOTTHEM. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I encourage the honorable arbs to be a bit more clear in why they decline, for the benefit of Atsme and the community. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, I'm obviously not sitting here as a judge, so let's get that out of the way. You're trying to argue that I can't have an opinion on your appeal because I have an opinion on how you edited in that area, but that makes no sense at all. And since I think you're misreading my comments (I think you usually do--maybe I'm too cryptic?), when I criticize, as I have, "Trump editors", I kinda do mean "all Trump editors". I didn't say "pro-Trump editors". The whole area is still a mess, but I think it is a tiny bit less of a mess now. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender[edit]

In my opinion the topic ban appeal should be declined. Atsme has been an extremely disruptive force on Wikipedia in this topic area for nearly two years (by far the most disruptive regular Wikipedian I have seen in my 11 years here), and in my opinion the topic ban itself was very late in coming. ~~and not broad enough. (In my opinion the topic ban should have been American politics, broadly construed.)~~ Trying to implicate Bishonen is ridiculous; Bishonen has a very long history of clarity, integrity, and neutrality even when she is in disagreement; in fact, she has defended Atsme against others when the situation merited it. Softlavender (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: The "Indef topic ban" link at the top of this appeal is somewhat misleading, because it only mentions "Atsme is topic banned from making any edits relating to Donald Trump, broadly construed"; but the actual topic ban is, as it should rightfully be, "from post-1932 American politics, broadly construed" [121].) -- Softlavender (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mandruss[edit]

All I can say is that the following reasoning is bizarre: "Editors/admins X, Y, and Z have a history of opposing my behavior, so they are clearly biased against me and their opinions about me should be disqualified." (I think my paraphrasing is accurate enough.) In other words, the only people qualified to speak on this matter should be those who are unsure of their positions about it, or haven't shown any interest until now. That kind of argument alone is enough to push me off any fence I may have been on. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Atsme topic ban appeal: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Atsme topic ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Decline. The appeal is not persuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would allow the appeal to be withdrawn as long as it is understood there cannot be another appeal for at least six months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The appeal does not address why the topic ban should be lifted, and in fact appears to double down on the actions that caused the topic ban to be placed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. To echo Rick and Brad, I am not convinced that this appeal gives any indication of why the topic ban should be lifted. An appeal should generally focus on one's own actions, not the actions of other editors, even for the sake of "comparison". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say that the appeal cannot be withdrawn at this point, considering the amount of discussion that's occurred, but I'm open to considering it if other arbitrators feel differently. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to allow the withdraw of this appeal, with the caveat that Atsme will not be allowed to appeal in anyway shape or form, this topic ban for 6 months. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree to allow a withdrawal with Rick's caveat as well as the fact that review of the substance of the ban at WP:AE/WP:AN is now off-the-table. Essentially, a withdrawn appeal at this point is functionally the same as a declined appeal. We should absolutely not force an editor to be dragged through the rest of the appeal process if they prefer to withdraw from it, but there shouldn't be benefits to withdrawing other than that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can support withdrawal with those caveats. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: American politics 2 (December 2019)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Atsme at 23:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Awilley

Information about amendment request

Indef t-ban from Anti-fascism broadly construed

Removal of the t-ban, and redaction from the log

Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins

Cessation of WP:HOUNDING under the guise of "rope"

Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability

Admins should not be permitted to create their own DS, or micromanage a topic area by imposing unilateral actions against editors for violations of DS that are not specifically defined in ArbCom Remedies

Statement by Atsme[edit]

I believe Awilley is a good admin trying to accomplish good things but is going about it the wrong way. He has inadvertently misused the tools and created more disruption than he's resolved. His bias is sometimes obvious but not consistently so. He takes unilateral actions based on his customized DS which has lead to POV creep and specific DS for specific editors as he sees fit. He is micromanaging AP2 and controlling the narrative by lording over editors. His experimental undertakings and ominous presence have a chilling effect. The following diffs will demonstrate the depth of his involvement and why ArbCom needs to modify/amend AE, particularly with reference to the issues mentioned herein. Note: I pinged only the few admins mentioned in the diffs below, but do not consider them or any of the editors named to be involved parties.

The day after I sought Awilley's help, he exercised a unilateral action and imposed an indef t-ban based on his misinterpretation of WP:GASLIGHTING

7/21/2019 I sought Awilley's help to stop disruption at an article
7/21/2019 his response
7/21/2019 editor later apologized to me
7/21/2019 collaboration had begun
7/22/2019 - next day, Awilley imposed a t-ban, derailing my participation in consensus building
7/23/2019 - slightly modifiied the t-ban
7/25/2019 - confirms his misinterpretation
User_talk:Awilley#DS - full TP discussion
Tagged for deletion/redirect to quietly cover-up his mistake
7/26/2019 - redirect discussion
My total July edits in the t-banned topic area: Talk:Antifa (United States) - 24 edits; Talk:Fascism - 9 edits; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willem van Spronsen - 4 edits;

Involved, enforces homemade DS in anticipation of disruption, not because of it

6/2/2019 - admin advice
7/13/2019- another admin describes it as a "personal crusade"
7/14/2019 - he questions criticism
10/3/2019 - editor advice about his involvement,
10/3/2019 - he admits to it
10/29/2019 - oblivious to the chilling effects of his threats
10/31/2019 - unaware of own involvement
10/31/2019 - another admin gives advice
11/15/2019 - unaware of hounding or disruption he creates
11/15/2019 - in denial, ...the sanctions I imposed were not meant as a supervote or to derail a community process.

Hounding, attempts to manipulate & control what others say and think

2/21/2019 - I respond to misrepresentations
2/22/2019 - hounding during 1st appeal - please note the section title On a personal note ^{16:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)}
2/25/2019 - ignores consensus & goes with rope to maintain control
2/27/2019 - another admin responds
3/1/2019 - labels constructive criticism Strawman
4/9/2019 - preconceived notions
11/15/2019 - manipulative - Anybody with one eye can see that I pressured Snoogans into making those commitments..."

Displays of favoritism wherein he allows normal processes to work without his interference

7/7/2019 - allows editors to work things out, a courtesy I was denied
7/11/ 2019 gives editor a chance to self-correct
7/23/2019 - simply redacts racial slur & helps involved editor with no warnings
8/1/2019 - acts on an afterthought he should have engaged in before t-ban *RfC supported my position but again, his interference derailed my participation in a community process
8/8/2019 - he's too busy to sanction, & tells editor to take a week off
10/31/2019 - removes offensive comment, adds a friendly warning
11/3/2019 - IP criticism over his friendly warnings and courtesy removals
11/15/2019 - negotiates a side deal, rescinds DS

Response - Awilley's statement amplifies his inability to take responsibility for his mistakes or hounding disguised as WP:ROPE, and further demonstrates his POV creep, bias, and favoritism as evidenced by the diffs above and contained herein. He eludes discussion about the confusion and disruption caused by his unilateral actions & subsequent retractions for favored editors or when other admins question him. A few examples follow: he imposed NPC & TS DS based on an AE case; retracted TS; retracts both. A well-stated criticism over special DS followed by a little brew ha ha grave dance and a null edit “Let’s both sleep on this, deal?”; he mentions harm, creep and super-specific sanctions tailored to individual editors; he responds to criticism but rejects any notion that his micromanagement-style lording over the AP2 topic area is harmful. With regards to WP:GASLIGHTING, I repudiate his response as an obvious diversion of the truth per the diffs and discussion I've provided. I will also add that he has not said anything to others who have used the term, particularly when used fallaciously as in the 1st subsection title; or when used by others on his UTP, or in discussions wherein he participated. Quite frankly, it is creepy stalking by an admin, who is overly involved in a topic area, anticipating or perhaps even hoping an editor makes a mistake so he can impose his homemade DS. It has an undeniably chilling effect, and demands a closer look by ArbCom. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde - thank you for your input. I am here requesting clarification and amendment as it relates to my case which has proven to be an excellent example of Awilley's overreach stemming from sole discretion and unilateral actions taken in the name of AE DS; thus, ARCA is the correct venue. Presenting it in parts or in any other form, and we'd have a carriage without the horse. Awilley's t-ban was an action of AE DS but it had an unforseen undertow - one that is not isolated to only my case as evidenced in the diffs above, as well as by his overreach in other cases such as this one wherein he inadvertently interfered with consensus building. His activities need ArbCom's scrutiny and clarification, which will benefit all of us, including Awilley himself. The community elected a committee to arbitrate tough cases that could not/should not be remedied by a single admin - yet, AE DS tossed the ball back into the admin court by authorizing unilateral actions which has afforded an excessive amount of leverage to an admin's sole discretion which leads to problems when there are POV issues, bias (perceived or otherwise), preconceived notions, and/or a shadowed history between an admin and an editor. The latter typically arises from over-involvement in a particular topic area (see diffs). No editor should ever be subjected to hounding by an admin who is stalking them in the shadows just waiting for them to make a mistake. I went to Awilley seeking help, as I have occasionally done with you, Vanamonde. The diffs I provided above speak to the result, and it had a very chilling effect on me. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie - please look at the following 2 diffs again: [122], [123] - it appears you missed them if you believe there was no attempt to cover up his misinterpretation of Gaslighting when he t-banned me. I was asking for his help and he turned around and accused me instead. One of the editors who was doing it at the article TP apologized to me and I included that diff as well. The log also confirms the attempted cover-up via redirect so that it would support his version, as does his TP. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_11#Wikipedia:GASLIGHTING He stated clearly "This seems like a non-neutral and misleading redirect. Gaslighting has a specific meaning and the target page (examples of gaming/wikilawering) doesn't include anything about gaslighting or any other form of psychological abuse. An example of a similarly unhelpful redirect would be WP:KILL to WP:BLOCK. We don't want users running around complaining that an admin threatened to "kill" them; in a similar way we don't want users to complaing that gamers are "gaslighting" His TP discussion also clearly states what he thought Gaslighting meant and what he was accusing me of, and then in the Redirect discussion, Ivanvector explained it to him. His response was Doh! I should have seen that. I even went so far as to do a search for a more appropriate target, which wasn't very helpful since it brought up the current target and a bunch of AN/I-like pages. Please feel free to speedy close this with the if that's a thing around here. (I can do the retarget myself.) them." So, yes, he did initially try to cover it up and was unsuccessful. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

’’’To the Arbs’’’ - I came here for clarity, and it appears you may have misunderstood the diffs I’ve provided. I went to Awilley for help and in turn, he accused me of wrongfully using WP:GASLIGHTING because he thought it meant Gaslighting and t-banned me for using it. Then, in an effort to make the term fit his definition and justify his t-ban, he attempted to deceitfully redirect the WP guideline to the article. That is not a proper action. One of the editors apologized to me for his behavior further substantiating that I used the guideline correctly, and described the disruption correctly. It was not I causing it. How can you say that what Awilley did was a proper action, GorillaWarfare, PremeditatedChaos and KrakatoaKatie?? The entire crux of what Awilley did was based on his misinterpretation of the term. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 09:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re-do ping that didn’t send: Premeditated Chaos ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare - no, that is not what happened, and the diffs unequivocally support my position. Saying I was "backsliding into behavior that led to your previous AP topic ban" - is absolutely false. This is more of Awilley's made-up DS, hair trigger ill-conceived actions based on misinterpretations - the diffs support what I'm saying. He did it to me - misinterpreted my use of WP:GASLIGHTING, thinking it meant psychological manipulation and then tried to redirect it to article that describes it as psychological manipulation. With all due respect, that is not what you described. I provided, and further substantiated with his actual words above, exactly what happened. It is unambiguous. This is exactly why I combined the two issues - to demonstrate to ArbCom that admins should not take unilateral actions when they are that involved, or they are biased and have preconceived notions. TonyBallioni summarized it quite well in this diff - and it has happened to me. What Awilley believes may become disruption is NOT a reason to block or t-ban an editor. I have barely edited in the subject area that covers his t-ban- I may have a total of 30 edits there - certainly not enough to demonstrate any kind of backsliding pattern. What does concern me more and should concern every editor on this project, is the fact that ArbCom has given a green light to admins allowing them sole discretion to make-up rules as they go, act unilaterally while micromanaging a topic area, and t-banning/blocking any editor they so desire for whatever reason they choose. If that is acceptable to the community, then I have nothing more to say. I thank you for your time. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare - JzG just cast some very harmful aspersions against me in violation of DECORUM - it was a blatant character assassination. He has made fallacious claims against me over the years - they are undeniably PAs and they should be redacted. His accusations with regards to laetrile & G. Edward Griffin are completely false and misleading. My last edit to that BLP was on March 13, 2015. Read it for yourselves. WP:AVDUCK is also available for everyone to read - it was my first attempt at writing an essay - I am simply a co-author among several - it is a good essay, one I was encouraged to write by SlimVirgin several years ago. As for GMOs - I may have made 3 edits in that topic area, broadly construed, and I think it was an insecticide article, and maybe I participated in an RfC - that is the extent of my involvement. GMOs are not my area of interest. JzG has been HOUNDING me and constantly casts the same aspersions over and over again. I have tried to ignore him over the years, but he keeps bringing it up. He needs a major time out. His attempt to sugarcoat his aspersions do not make the well any less poisoned. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare - I will do my best to clarify in response to your question:
- 7/23/2019 T-ban - "Despite your commitments to "LETITGO", when someone actually suggested that you "drop the stick" you accuse them of "gaslighting" you." July 20 2019 The diff clearly explains what was happening. An editor apologized to me for his behavior. We were about to start an RfC. Awilley's preconceived notions clouded his judgement - he did not AGF and had WP:ROPE foremost on his mind because he is far too involved in the topic area - so much so that he uses AP2 as a petri dish - read the diff. Read the wise concerns by DGG, TonyBallioni and other admins. Awilley targeted my use of gaslighting based on his misinterpretation rather than focusing on the bullying and the reason I went to him for help.
- I approached Awilley on * July 24th regarding his definition of WP:GASLIGHTING because I knew then that he had it wrong.

Awilley said: Me just now: "Hey Google, define gaslighting."
My phone: "Gaslight: manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."
I don't think "gaslighting" is an appropriate word to describe most garden variety disputes that pop up on Wikipedia's talk pages, if that's what you're trying to get at. ~Awilley (talk)
Atsme responds: No, actually I believe you should have referred to WP:GASLIGHTING instead - then you would have recognized what the others were doing to me. Atsme Talk 📧 10:29 am, 25 July 2019

July 26, 2019 The day after I explained WP:GASLIGHTING to Awilley, he opened a redirect for discussion and wikilinked to Gaslighting because that is what he saw as a better target page to justify his t-ban and belief that I had used such a radical term against good editors and caused disruption, when all along it was a WP guideline. He could have asked me or said something to me, but no - he was content with the definition he used because it justified his t-ban. How does his attempt at a quiet redirect not raise a brow?
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Wikipedia:GASLIGHTING Awilley stated: "This seems like a non-neutral and misleading redirect. Gaslighting has a specific meaning and the target page (examples of gaming/wikilawering) doesn't include anything about gaslighting or any other form of psychological abuse." In other words, he was unaware of the guideline definition which is how I applied it as a veteran editor who is familiar with our PAGs. I had no problem finding it because I just automatically figured someone probably moved the anchor and did not update the redirect.

Ivanvector explained: Retarget to Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the consensus-building process (the section directly below the current target) which specifically mentions gaslighting as a separate bullet point. In fact it's already listed as a shortcut for that section, not the one it currently targets. I suspect someone just made a mistake. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 1:37 pm, 26 July 2019, Friday (3 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5)
Awilley replies: "Doh! I should have seen that. I even went so far as to do a search for a more appropriate target, which wasn't very helpful since it brought up the current target and a bunch of AN/I-like pages. Please feel free to speedy close this with the if that's a thing around here. (I can do the retarget myself.)" ~Awilley (talk) 2:00 pm, 26 July 2019, Friday (3 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5)

He admits "I even went so far as to do a search for a more appropriate target,..." - more appropriate meaning appropriate to his definition of psychological manipulation which would justify his t-ban. His motives were quite clear - he did not believe me - he had preconceived notions - he was in a ROPE mindset. It happens - he did it - my case is exemplary in demonstrating the bigger issue I brought here - unilateral actions and sole discretion in AE DS - and the problems with micromanagement and customizing DS to a particular editor. Yes, it is all related but I would rather put my t-ban on hold, and focus on the bigger issue which is highly problematic. Thank you to the arbitrators, I apologize for lacking clarity but this has been a very stressful endeavor for me. I hope you all will forgive my faults and human errors. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, if Awilley’s misunderstanding of gaslighting is not the reason in your view, then what is exactly? Slippage into past behavior is technically not a reason. What policy did I violate? What behavior was disruptive to the point of t-ban worthy? Please be specific because the diffs provided do not demonstrate disruption or behavior worthy of a t-ban when what I was saying led to an apology, an RfC and the proper outcome in an AfD wherein I was being bludgeoned. I am even more confused now than when I started and would very much appreciate your naming a t-ban worthy violation. Does an admin saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT apply as a valid reason to call an editor’s consensus building discussion disruptive behavior? I really need to know the policy I violated so I don’t repeat the behavior. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare there is a lengthy discussion about similar matters I brought here for clarification/amendment taking place at ANI now. This case is going nowhere because, in retrospect, it was malformed and probably should have been rejected from the start by a clerk or someone who could offer me a bit of help in doing it properly. I never intended for the appeal to be separate from the other - I apologize for the confusion but the two go hand in hand as evidenced by the ANI discussion. Will you close this case ~~as malformed~~ as appeal denied or whatever else you need to do? ~~in light of the ANI case~~?^{11:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)} ^Atsme _Talk 📧 09:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG could not have provided a better reason for ArbCom to carefully consider why it is highly problematic to allow admins - especially involved admins with strong biases as JzG just demonstrated - to use sole discretion when taking unilateral actions based on their personal interpretations of DS. To distort the truth, take an editor’s comments out of context, and espouse misinformation repeatedly for nearly 5 years using WP’s own consensus building process in a diff to denigrate and patronize a female editor is behavior unbecoming an admin, and it deserves ArbCom’s utmost scrutiny. The misogyny in his comments could not be more obvious. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley[edit]

Just a note to say that I have seen this and that I won't be able to make a full response tonight. If this is about getting the topic ban rescinded I am ready to do that at any time if/when Atsme makes an appeal. She asked me a couple of times via email to rescind the ban, but I informed her that I don't do appeals by email. After that she approached me on my talk page asking how to appeal and I responded with my criteria. The exchange is here. The only other on-wiki discussion I can remember that remotely resembled an appeal was on my talk page here. I haven't had times to review the diffs above but if there are things people find concerning please let me know so I can respond specifically to the concerns. ~Awilley (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some more time to review this, and I'm still a bit unclear on what proportion of this is a request to lift the Antifa topic ban I placed on Atsme vs. a request for arbitrator intervention against myself vs. a request to modify the nature of discretionary sanctions. Looking at the diffs above I feel a few points might need some clarification:

Above it is stated that I imposed the topic ban based on my misinterpretation of WP:GASLIGHTING. In fact the use of the word "gaslighting" was only part of the rationale, and the link to WP:GASLIGHTING seems retroactive. Usually when someone is referencing a WP policy or guideline that is indicated via formatting (the inclusion of a link, a "WP:" on the front of the word, or ALLCAPS). The first time I saw Atsme use such formatting was on July 25 on my talk page, 3 days after the topic ban had been placed. Prior to that the only special formatting for the word "gaslighting" had been 🔥to put it between flame emojis🔥
Above it is stated that I tried to redirect/delete the WP:GASLIGHTING redirect to "quietly cover up" something. What actually happened was that the link was pointing to the wrong target. When it was placed on my talk page I clicked on it to see what it said, and what I found didn't even mention gaslighting. I searched around to see if there was a better target...direct mention in an essay or policy or something, and when I couldn't find anything I put it up for discussion. I think my intentions should be pretty obvious to anybody who reads the two comments I made at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_11#Wikipedia:GASLIGHTING. I fixed the redirect here.
Re: involvement, as far as I can recall my interactions with Atsme and other editors in the topic area have been in an administrative role and the occasional edit or wording suggestion is aimed at helping editors in disagreement find common ground. Many disputes on Wikipedia can be resolved with creative compromise wordings that satisfy the objections of both sides. I've put a lot of effort into trying to get people out of the all-or-nothing mindset that seems to frequently dominate American Politics discussions. A recent example of that is here. I feel that is in line with the second paragraph of WP:INVOLVED which states that "an administrator whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."

On the subject of custom sanctions (I wish we could depreciate the "special" descriptor) I believe I have been very cautious with the application and receptive to feedback. Of the 7 sanctions listed on my subpage, 2 have never been applied, and 2 have been retired. In the 1.5 years since I created the sanctions I have applied them to only 7 editors, and currently sanctions are only active on 2 editors. The sanctions are designed to give users a chance to correct mistakes, so actual enforcement is rarely necessary.
Here's a quick table summary of which sanctions have been applied, and how many times:

Summary table of custom sanctions

Sanction	Number of times applied	Number of times remedy needed to be enforced
No Personal Comments (On Artcle Talk pages, don't distract from content by attacking the contribuotrs)	5	0
Thicker Skin (On Article Talk pages, don't accuse others of making personal comments directed at yourself)	2	0
Edit Summaries (Say what you're doing, and don't mislead)	0	-
Courtesy in Reporting (No "gotcha" reports to administrative noticeboards...politely give the offender a chance to fix the problem first)	2	0
Consensus Required (Just like the page restriction, except it only applies to 1 editor. If your edit is reverted, don't restore it without consensus on talk.)	0	-
~~Anti-Filibuster~~ (Deprecated) (Don't bludgeon RfCs)	3	0.5 (1-week topic ban was informal, un-logged)
~~Auto-Boomerang~~ (Deprecated)	1	0

I would also note that I am hardly the first to apply custom sanctions to editors. It happens both from consensus processes (at AN/I and Arbcom), and with individual admins acting unilaterally. I think I've just been more public about it, writing the sanctions down and re-using them.

Here are some examples of custom sanctions that other admins have placed on individual editors

Examples of custom sanctions from other admins

"[editor] is prohibited for six months from adding any article-level maintenance tags to any Trump-related articles"
"[editor] is indefinitely prohibited from commenting on AE requests to which they are not a party."
"[editor] is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons..."
"[editor] prohibited from commenting on Wikipedia with regards to any accounts owned or alleged to be owned by Wikipedia editors on non-Wikimedia websites...:
"[editor] is prohibited from describing any edit as "vandalism" (whether in edit summaries, on talk pages, or anywhere else) unless it meets the definition at WP:VAND"
"[editor] prohibited from violations of WP:AGF; advised to avoid commenting on contributor."
"[editor] prohibited from reverting without discussing"
"[editor]...prohibited for four months from making more than one revert per week"
"[editor] is prohibited from commencing or participating in dispute resolution or enforcement processes (including arbitration enforcement) relating to user conduct within the area of conflict (as defined by WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions) for a period of two months, save for processes concerning his or her own conduct. To avoid doubt, "commencing or participating in" includes doing so by proxy.
"[editor] prohibited from using images that advocate against any party involved in the Israeli-Arab conflict on their user page."

There are of course more...these examples are just the ones that happened to contain the word "prohibited" (found these in the log with Ctrl+F)

Another well-known example is: "[editor] agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors...If [editor] finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve..."

I'm happy to discuss this in depth elsewhere, but since it was being discussed here I figured I'd respond here. ~Awilley (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again on the subject of custom sanctions, I'm happy to discuss it here or elsewhere. I've solicited input since the beginning, and it's probably time to have a formal discussion. From what I understand of DGG's position, questions that need to be addressed are (in order):
- Should ArbCom continue to delegate its power to Admins in the form of Discretionary Sanctions?
  - Should individual admins continue to have the power to impose unilateral discretionary action? (I think this is where DGG says "No".)
  - Should the admins at AE have the power to impose custom sanctions (more than just the standard toolset of blocks, topic bans, revert restrictions)? (Not sure where DGG stands on this.)
    - Should individual admins have the power to impose custom sanctions? (Strong "No" from DGG, I think)
      - Do the custom sanctions listed at User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions push the envelope too far? In particular, do the specific enforcement procedures (meant to give people a chance to resolve disputes at the lowest level without admin intervention) and fixed remedies (meant to reduce drama from disproportionate punishment) make the sanctions too complicated to be useful?
    - Would it help to have a page of sanctions that can be imposed unilaterally by individual admins?
      - If so, would it be helpful to expand that list of sanctions to use some of the custom sanctions that have been used by the community over the years? (For example, sanctions against speculating on talk pages about the motivations of other editors, or commenting in AE requests to which you aren't a party, or reverting more than once without discussion, or making "gotcha" requests to noticeboards without first giving editors a chance to self-revert)

Also, would it be better to discuss this in an amendment request, or in a formal case with evidence pages and workshops? ~Awilley (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A question: @GorillaWarfare: If this is closed as "declined", could you clarify if I would be allowed at a later date to possibly remove the topic ban myself, unilaterally? I would like for that to be an option, since appeals here and at AE can be time consuming and messy, but I don't want to go anywhere near unilaterally overriding Arbcom. ~Awilley (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo[edit]

I have previously criticized Awilley's special discretionary sanctions as complex and arbitrary. In response, Awilley deprecated the anti-filibuster sanction as too complex. Anti-filibuster sanction was this: In talk page discussions you are limited to 3 initial posts, then 1 post per 24-hrs. In threads specifically for voting you are limted to 1 post. Imagine having to count that for highly active editors. You'd have to WP:HOUND pretty hard to see it enforced.

Well, good that is was deprecated. But the principle of giving this much discretion needs to be evaluated. Being this customizable and complex means it's hard to enforce them in an even way. It is also interesting to see that the special sanction for Snooganssnoogans was negotiated away. Special discretion is like entering the King's court and seeing if he, on this occasion, wants to give you sanctions 1, 2, 3 and 4 or if you can strike a side-deal. Needless to say, the situation would be unworkable if all admins had their own set of special sanctions. --Pudeo (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG[edit]

Sometimes there is a need to make sanctions a little flexible. But to avoid confusion, this needs to be kept very close to the standard parameters. I understand Awilley's desire to find sanctions that might possibly be more effective than the standard. But this is not really the sort of thing that is fair to the subjects of these sanctions --or even those threatened by such sanctions-- when done by individual experimentation. Very reasonably the enactment of DS by Arb Com the last few years has been in the direction of greater standardization, instead of the earlier experimentation case by case. Even as a committee we learned not to try to be too inventive. Dispute resolution needs a stable environment. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that the remaining members of the current arbitration committee considers the sort of customized sanctions to beperhaps an inappropriate delegation of their powers, they should reconsider. The committee can appropriately use its collectve judgememnt and the authority given by the elections to devise any sanctions it considers reasonable. Delegating the same function to whatever one of the several hundred individual admins may choose to exercise their imagination is another matter entirely. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question that has not yet been adequately addressed is whether it is appropriate for any one single admin to be the "admin trying to get some order in the topic area" (KK). Arb com would never let one individual arb make the decisions in a case: consider the concern when the number of active admin this year fell so low as to possibly be unrepresentative. Nor would the community ever have approved an arb policy where we had a single arb, or a single arb for any one question. Nor would any arb I have ever encountered suggest that they personally were qualified to do this--the only person to ever do so was Jimbo, and when he last tried to do just that a number of years ago, the community reaction was such that he agreed to not take such actions at enWP ever again.

all the more so would the arbs never appoint a single admin to enforce decisions. They and we should see this more generally--it should be made clear that no one admin should repeatedly engage in arb enforcement on the same individual or take a disproportionate share for any large area. Thefundamental reason is not competence, but that even if one is perfectly free from all bias, some degree of bias will unconsciously develop as one carries out enforcement. I don't believe there is anyone here or anywhere less that is totally free from this tendency.

The system here survives because people here more or less trust it, and almost all admins step back when they suspect even the beginning of disproportionate interest, and most certainly when another WPedian suggests the possibility. Even if that WPedian is acting in unnecessary over-sensitive self protection, there are hundreds of other admins. And even if that WPedian is acting to delay or avoid justified action, there are hundreds of other admins to take over. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

Can be discussed in a separate request if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think Arbcom should establish a limited set of standard discretionary sanctions to be used by admins. Simply saying "any reasonable measure" here is not good enough. I am not saying the sanctions by Awilley were bad, outside discretion or unreasonable. To the contrary, I think you need to look at them and decide if something Awilley suggested can be used as a basis for the new standard DS, in addition to 1RR, page protection, etc. You might also look at the "consensus required" restriction used in AP area. However, I think that one should never be used, based on the amount of confusion and infighting it caused. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen[edit]

There are at least two uncomfortable "amendment request" bedfellows here. Both DGG and Pudeo, perhaps also MVBW, seem to be getting Awilley's bog standard topic ban of Atsme from Anti-fascism broadly construed mixed up with Awilley's "special discretionary sanctions". The topic ban Atsme is appealing here has nothing to do with those special sanctions, but was simply placed per the AP2 discretionary sanctions. DGG has previously criticized Awilley's special sanctions roundly, compare User talk:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions, passim but especially recently, and so has Pudeo (but I'm not going to dig that up). They are perhaps so interested in the special sanctions that they can't resist posting about them here. Indeed, Atsme also alludes to Awilley's special sanctions: "Admins should not be permitted to create their own DS, or micromanage a topic area by imposing unilateral actions against editors for violations of DS that are not specifically defined in ArbCom Remedies". And yet this request is framed as an amendment to (= a lifting of) Awilley's indef T-ban from Anti-fascism broadly construed. If getting that T-ban lifted is Atsme's goal here, then Awilley's special sanctions are neither here nor there, for the T-ban is not based on them, and people should stop confusing the arbitrators by bringing them up. If, on the other hand, Atsme primarily wants to complain to ArbCom about Awilley's special sanctions, that is a much bigger subject, which should not be mixed with an irrelevant T-ban request. She may wish to consider posting another, separate, ARCA request about the special sanctions.

For my part, I find Awilley's detailed rationale for the topic ban persuasive. It is largely based on Atsme's own promises and undertakings when she successfully appealed a previous, broader, topic ban from the entirety of the AP2 area. People believed those undertakings, and therefore accepted her appeal.

(Parenthetical note: Atsme has also listed Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins and Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability under "Clauses to which an amendment is requested", but I'm going to assume that was accidental, and due to the constraints of the ARCA template. Atsme surely knows that it's not for ArbCom to amend Wikipedia's policies, and merely meant to say those policies support her request.) Bishonen | talk 14:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde (AP2)[edit]

I'd like to make a couple of indirectly related points here. First, Atsme, an ARCA where you are appealing your own topic ban isn't the place to demand an examination of Awilley's actions. Second, with respect to specific sanctions; I can understand the desire to make our sanctions regimes as simple as possible. However, it is worth noting that a specific sanction is often created because the only reasonable alternative would be a much broader sanction. I have on numerous occasions proposed specific sanctions because they were the only workable way to allow an editor to continue to be productive, and because the alternative responses were draconian. As such, if we move away from user-specific sanctions, I think we will inevitably see more frequent and more severe "standard" sanctions being applied; so y'all might want to think about what you're really asking for. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq[edit]

I won't say much, based on the assumption that the Arbs will take 5 minutes to look at Awilley's AE sanction notice and the diffs he included in it, look at Atsme's promises made in her February appeal, and quickly realize this was a measured, restrained use of DS. Reimposing the original full AP topic ban would have been justifiable, but no good deed goes unpunished I guess.

If the committee wants to consider Awilley's specialized DS, that should probably be a separate clarification request; it has nothing to do with Atsme's appeal, because this is a bog-standard topic ban. But per Vanamonde, preventing such specialized DS's will likely just lead to more admins using a full AP topic ban instead. Which - as in this case - might not be a bad thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell[edit]

This topic ban appeal seems to consist almost entirely of poorly substantiated or completely unfounded attacks against the admin who imposed the sanction. Atsme goes so far as to accuse Awilley of "creepy stalking", which is an appalling—and, again, completely unfounded—personal attack. And she's presumably on her best behavior in this venue. I don't see any compelling rationale put forward to lift the topic ban, and this appeal reinforces more general concerns about Atsme's suitability as an editor in the American-politics topic area.

As for Awilley's custom discretionary sanctions, while I sometimes disagree with his application, he deserves a few dozen barnstars—and ArbCom's unflinching support and gratitude—for being willing to try something in a topic area that most admins have long since abandoned to belligerent partisans. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO[edit]

I've spoken with Awilley numerous times and believe he is trying to do the right thing by making tailor-made sanctions and restrictions. But have also seen a number of admins say this is overly complex and difficult to enforce. I am definitely more in favor of an admin who imposes highly specific sanctions that do not eliminate the editor from similar areas within the same topic where they are not causing issues. Lastly, I do not see any reason to sanction Awilley but definitely think Atsme has previously been targeted for relatively minor issues by the same admins that defend far worse activity from editors they share biases with. I mean, it couldn't be more obvious if one was slapped in the head with a trout and frankly, I think its despicable.--MONGO (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric...I think a careful review of Atsme's comment indicates she was NOT saying JzG had themselves made unilateral actions in the arena in question. However, when we have admins who so voraciously state their peculiar absolutism as far as what qualifies as referencing (even though said references have repeated been found by the consensus of the Wikippedia community to be reliable), their opinion invaribly carries more weight due to their admin status, for better or worse. Opinion crowns with an imperial voice, sadly.--MONGO (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close as this is no longer productive.--MONGO (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129[edit]

First things first, Arbcommers: deprecate the use of "special" / "custom" sanctions, preferably by motion (although noting the discussion below). The whole point of discretionary sanctions is that they level the playing field in contentious areas while treating all editors equally. A unique set of sanctions that may or may not be used does precisely the opposite. Damoclean; or imagine, if you will Thomas, Lord Stanley waiting in the wings at Bosworth deciding which way the chips will fall...

——SN54129 14:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SashiRolls[edit]

I was pleased to find myself missing from AWilley's 29 October 2019 pschitt list.

Can Atsme's TBAN be appealed anywhere other than at ArbCom at this point?

Concerning "Gaslighting": I've seen this term a lot on en.wp over the years, starting probably with SageRad at AE in 2016 and most recently in the exchange between GorillaWarfare and Kudpung on the latter's campaign page for election to the body who will decide this case, if it is taken.

I'm a little hesitant to read AWilley's initial call to delete WP:GASLIGHTING as a "cover-up", but I do think that AWilley does have some problems discerning red & green when observing concerted activities across Wikipedia spaces (mainspace, talkspace, usertalkspace, WPtalk-space, and in disciplinary spaces like this one). Still, the ensuing deletion discussion was interesting.

I get how the "having a reputation developed for you" game works. I've been blocked twice by Awilley (which is actually a significant percentage of their blocking activity), and am, in addition, the recipient of one of his special dispensations. As he says, he doesn't enforce them, they're just little brooches of dishonor we're encouraged to show our wiki-friends at AE parties.

I think that, as Katie has suggested, ArbCom should look into how DS are being used and perhaps just as importantly how they are not being used. I will, time permitting, add to the evidence page once/if one is opened. As often, I seem to be awash in evidence. ^^ In short, yes, Awilley's enforcement in AP2 might well tend towards the arbitrary & capricious, from my point of view. The rules themselves are pretty good, of course.

In the larger context of DS-misuse, I suppose I could appeal Kingofaces43 v. SashiRolls (I & II) soon. I was not very successful in appealing Sagecandor v. SashiRolls (I & II) to ArbCom back in the day. There are some notable similarities (and differences) in the two prosecutions. I suppose that the path to irredeemability would begin with pools of tears at AE, rather than at ArbCom?

Still, I do think Atsme is right to raise the question of the mixed reception and enforcement history of Mr. Awilley's special and less special discretionary black marks, since he took over the templating of AP2 from Coffee. If ArbCom chooses to look into that aspect of this case in conjunction with—or separately from—Awilley's TBAN of Atsme, I'll add some diffs. I first looked into this because I like Atsme. I've commented because I'm not absent from the context of the diffs above (e.g. [124]), though I'm not involved in the discussions surrounding antifa.

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing as a clerk action --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 22:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It is amusing that Calton, of all the involved people who could show up, is directing anyone who is concerned about the misuse of DS to AN instead of to ArbCom. This is, as DGG suggested in Boston (Wikimania), probably the right place for this discussion to be taking place. I would add that the weaponisation of DS is nothing new and goes well beyond the specific example of it that will be given concerning AWilley once we get to the evidence presentation stage.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Calton's claims in the context of the en.wp mainspace definition of gaslighting. There is no problem with DS (denial), I am a misguided parachutist (misdirection) making comments about previously unmentioned and unrelated subjects like discretionary sanctions and gaslighting (contradiction). What's more I'm not concerned (despite being one of only two people currently sanctioned by Awilly's special disciplinary measures) (lying), my comments are off-topic and only semi-coherent (destabilize the victim and discredit the victim's beliefs). Thanks for helping by providing Arbs this textbook example. (Cf. e.g. Calton's May 25 block, or his edit summary here) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG (American politics 2)[edit]

I commend AWilley for making this a narrower ban than I would have argued for. My experience with Atsme is that she is delightful but given to devoting furious energy to lost causes. That was true when I first encountered her at G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where she was arguing that we were suppressing Laetrile as a cancer cure; it was true in the GMO case; it has been true in numerous recent disputes around American Politics. At WP:RSN, she referred to the "Russian collusion conspiracy theory", a Fox News talking point. That may be an indicator as to the root of the problem, I don't know. It's pretty clear by now that the right wing media bubble does not share a common fact base with mainstream sources, and that's always going to prove difficult on Wikipedia, especially right now - and I have to confess that does cause me to wonder about the advice she might be giving people via OTRS, if she still has access.

I invite the arbitrators to review the history of Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, notably it's early version almost wholly the work of Atsme here. This is a response to a one against many dispute here. It may be summarised as: when large numbers of people disagree with you, it's probably because they are all colluding to push an agenda. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed since then.

Example: this edit] to her ACE guide for 2019 switches from Support to Oppose 15 minutes after a sitting arbitrator expressed support for this sanction. Yes, you're allowed to do that, but the inference is clear: your qualities as a Wikipedian depend on how closely you agree with Atsme. That is the mentality expressed in the "advocacy ducks" article and the talk page debates that led to the sanction.

Atsme can be lovely, a delight to be around when not on a hot button issue. She gets very passionate about things and has a hard time accepting when consensus is against her. She can be too prone to ascribe opposition to bias, and attempts to talk her down from the Reichstag as harassment. I think the further away from our US politics articles she stays, the happier she will be, especially in a climate where, as seems likely, her preferred sources are operating on an entirely different factual framework from Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 14:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh. It's not me, it's everybody else. This is very depressing. Guy (help!) 22:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare What would you like, please? I have viewed a lot of this as water under the bridge, we're allowed to grow as Wikipedians. DrChrissy died in 2017 and Atsme, a friend on-wiki, created Chris Sherwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). That's very touching, even though DrChrissy was a tireless advocate for alternative medicine and was eventually topic banned from biomedical topics for fringe advocacy (User talk:DrChrissy/Archive 7 § Community-imposed topic ban). I opposed this article creation but I was wrong: it's clear by now that he passed WP:PROF. I think Atsme is the kind of person who values personal friendships highly and that can lead to great outcomes for the project, like that article, but I fear it also leads her astray. I hope I can help you without burying Atsme any deeper. Guy (help!) 00:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare My uncertainty was as to how far back to go. I have always assumed that the older a diff, the less valid it is. I now understand the ask and will do some work in the morning (or rather, later in the morning, it's 01:43 here now). Guy (help!) 01:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy dispute over Atsme's attempts to remove Islamophobia references from Stop Islamization of America

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829 § Islamophobia vs Terrorism Projects 2014-02-16
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831 § Civility - Harassment 2014-03-05
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833 § Atsme and BLP violations 2014-03-24
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846 § BLP violation on IPT 2014-07-09
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive849 § Violations of WP:Civility, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLPGroup by User:Serialjoepsycho 2014-07-30
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive855 § And the hounding continues 2014-09-21
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive858 § Legal threat? 2014-10-05
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Disruption by Djcheburashka, proposed ban(s?)[edit]|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863 § Disruption by Djcheburashka, proposed ban(s?)[edit]]] 2014-11-11

Original AN dispute re Griffin article

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264 § G. Edward Griffin 2015-01-15 - example [125]
Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 10 § RfC on admissibility of additional sources
Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 10 § GA status?
Talk:G. Edward Griffin/Archive 9 § proposal - Atsme asserts, e.g. " I object to "Creationist view of history" because that is labeling with an opinion. He and others see it as historic which makes it noncompliant with NPOV. Also, without trying to mince words, he actually doesn't promote conspiracy theories, the latter of which is considered to be a contentious label, therefore it requires high quality sources with inline text attribution. Leaving POV at the login, we are writing a biography. His books actually dissect factual information which he disseminates from a conspiratorial view with the perception that such conspiracies are a threat to personal freedom." - this is in fact WP:SYN because the sources are clear in identifying books like Jekyll Island as promoting conspiracy theories.

I am sorry, I would go and look through more (from [126]) but I have to pack as I am away this week singing. Fairness is important to me here. I do not want to bury Atsme further, only to show a long history of tenaciously arguing against consensus for including criticism of right-wing groups and figures. From my experience of Atsme the TBAN is proportionate and a net good for both us and her. Guy (help!) 10:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Winged Blades of Godric[edit]

@Atsme:- Can you please point me to a few of JzG's administrative actions, under ACDS, in APOL? ∯WBG^converse 16:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calton[edit]

Collapsing as a clerk action --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 22:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Two things:

The business regarding "gaslighting", its true meaning, and wherever WP:GASLIGHTING goes to/went to/should go to/was redirected is pointlessly complicated and almost irrelevant: by saying that editors were "gaslighting" her, Atsme was claiming that they were LYING. Without strong evidence, that's a straight-up personal attack. It's as simple as that.
This is supposed to be an appeal of Atsme's topic ban: a Clerk or Admin should hat statements above that have nothing to do with Atsme and which are merely drive-by shots at Awilley, particularly those of User:Pudeo, User: SN54129, and User:SashiRolls. If they have a problem with Awilley, WP:AN is thataway. --Calton | Talk 10:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:SashiRolls: And it is perfectly in character for you to parachute into a discussion which has nothing to do with you so you can carry on with oft-sanctioned battleground behavior, and to do so in an only semi-coherent fashion. Which, again, is why your off-topic comments should be hatted and -- if necessary -- you should be topic-banned from commenting on things which don't concern you directly. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further response: thank you for providing a textbook example of word salad and further evidence that you should be topic-banned from all matters that don't concern you directly, if not a complete site-ban. --Calton | Talk 15:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000[edit]

IMHO, the only thing “wrong” with the current TBan is that it doesn’t encompass all of AP2. Atsme has proved a valuable contributor – in areas outside of AP2. When she steps into the AP2 arena, she runs into difficulty. This is apparently due to mistrust of highly regarded RS and a belief that there is a “deep state” conspiracy within the government. It is also due to perceiving bias where it doesn’t exist because her own biases are coloring her view. I think her lengthy statement here suggests such. I’m not asking for a widening of the TBan; so I’m not presenting a case. Just expressing an opinion that Atsme should not complain about a narrow sanction, avoiding politics would be better for both the project and Atsme herself, and that this request should be declined. (Disclosure: I have had many run-ins with the OP.) O3000 (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Two separate issues in play: the anti-fascism topic ban, and Awilley's boutique DS set. The former is appropriate for us to address here, and I think the topic ban is warranted and necessary. I don't see any evidence of a cover-up or hounding or harassment; I do see an admin trying to get some order in the topic area. That said, as to the discretionary sanctions scheme, I'm not crazy about it and wasn't crazy about it when I first learned of it several months ago. If Awilley runs across an editor, he's going to use his set of discretionary sanctions while all the other 1100+ admins will use another set. It's arbitrary, and I don't like it. But I believe this would be better addressed in a case request about discretionary sanctions, which is yet another thing we've been meaning to take a look at for a while. This would be an excellent opportunity for us to revisit the whole issue. Katie^talk 21:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Bishonen and KrakatoaKatie that this request appears to address two separate issues: the existence of Awilley's custom sanctions, and the antifascism topic ban he imposed upon Atsme. A topic ban from antifascism is about as standard as discretionary sanction enforcement gets, and so this does not seem to be a great place to also address whether admins should be creating their own sets of custom sanctions for use in areas where discretionary sanctions have been authorized. However it does seem like it would be worth visiting that issue somewhere, since there seem to be many people who share concerns about them. This is the first I've taken much of a look at Awilley's sanctions and while they are certainly a creative approach towards limiting problems in contentious areas, I share some of the concerns that have been expressed above. @Atsme:, I did want to get one piece of clarification from you—you've listed sections of the WP:Administrators policy in the "Clauses to which an amendment is requested" portion of the request. Was that an issue with the template or are you requesting we amend the administrator policy? That policy, as with all policies, is decided by the community, and the Arbitration Committee cannot unilaterally amend policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like the focus on the "gaslighting" issue is perhaps not useful here. Gaslighting has one relatively well-accepted meaning, which is the same meaning used at Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the consensus-building process #4. The previous location of the redirect (at the top of the general WP:Gaming the system page) was confusing and could feasibly lead someone to believe that "gaslighting" could be used to refer to gaming the system more generally, despite the term not having that meaning in standard usage. It's believable that Atsme was using the term in this way—after all, it would hardly be the first term that commonly means one thing, but is used differently in "wikispeak". My opinion is that Awilley started the discussion about the shortlink in good faith because using the term "gaslighting" to refer broadly to "gaming the system" is unusual and misleading, and the shortlink was rightfully moved to its appropriate subsection (where I suspect it was initially intended to go). It does not appear to be an attempt to cover anything up, or hide a misunderstanding—it appears to be an attempt to clarify. But as I said above, I don't think the focus on the "gaslighting" issue is all that relevant. @Atsme: Awilley did not topic ban you for using the term as you have said—he topic banned you for "backsliding into behavior that led to your previous AP topic ban". He linked to your accusations of gaslighting as an example of this, but even if that was all a misunderstanding over the usage of the term and even if we discount those diffs entirely, the topic ban still appears to be appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @JzG: It would be helpful if you could provide specific diffs to the behavior you're describing—though you've pointed at these incidences I would like to have the specific links so I can be sure we're referring to the same edits. @Atsme: I understand you take issue with a handful of admins in addition to Awilley, but I'm not sure it's best to try to lump those in with the topic ban appeal—normally discussions of administrator misconduct would happen at a case request, not at an amendment to a topic ban placed by a different admin, where those admins have commented. As it stands I don't see anything in the existing statements that needs to be removed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Participation (which I am assuming you are referring to when you mention "DECORUM"? Given the ambiguity we've already faced with your reference to "gaslighting", a wikilink would be useful for the absence of doubt as to what you're referring to). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atsme: Again, I think the focus on the "gaslighting" issue is not helpful here. There was clearly a discrepancy in how you used the term, vs. how Awilley understood it, and the former location of the WP:GASLIGHTING redirect didn't help matters. But the misunderstanding does not make the topic ban improper; for what it's worth, I also see Awilley's activity regarding the redirect to be in good faith. You mention you would rather put my t-ban on hold, and focus on the bigger issue which is highly problematic—there is no need to put anything on hold, especially given many people (yourself included) have already put a lot of time and effort into this discussion. You can open a separate discussion about the custom discretionary sanctions at any point. I understand if you'd rather not do a whole request from scratch, after already putting effort into writing this one—if you'd rather just copy the relevant portion of your statement below to a new request it would be fine by me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @JzG: I'm not sure what was unclear—I was asking for you to provide specific diffs for the behavior you were describing. For example, you wrote That was true when I first encountered her at G. Edward Griffin, where she was arguing that we were suppressing Laetrile as a cancer cure but did not include any diffs that would allow those of us who are unfamiliar with that incident to go familiarize ourselves. I can certainly go look for it, but it's best if you provide the diffs to avoid any doubt that I'm looking at the right argument. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @JzG: Ah, got it. Yes, it's possible that they're so old that they're not particularly relevant—that's partly why I asked that you do provide diffs, because it's hard to tell from your statement without them how old the behavior is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atsme: Slippage into past behavior is technically not a reason. Slippage into the same behavior that led to your original topic ban is absolutely reason enough for an administrator to reinstate a topic ban in a subsection of the same area. In fact, Awilley specifically noted when he granted your appeal that "backsliding into behaviors that led to the ban will result in further sanctions". Diffs were provided along with the topic ban. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atsme: I don't think it's accurate to say this is going nowhere—so far three arbitrators have commented to say that the topic ban appears to be appropriate. I also disagree that the discussion of your topic ban needs to be coupled with discussions of Awilley's custom sanctions—a topic ban is about as standard a DS enforcement action as there comes. Furthermore, aside from the two comments from Nil Einne, that discussion all appears to predate this request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline to lift the topic ban on Atsme, which doesn't appear to have been applied inappropriately. I agree with Katie and GW that the custom DS sanctions (or DS in general) should probably be addressed elsewhere in its own discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Atsme, the topic ban rationale clearly cites five separate diffs where you literally state that various editors are gaslighting you. Awilley didn't T-ban you for linking to a behavioral guideline via internal shortcut. For one thing, in those diffs, you didn't - every instance of the word "gaslighting" in those diffs is lowercase and unlinked, and WP:GASLIGHTING isn't so common a shortcut that it would be obvious you meant the internal shortcut rather than the common word. You were T-banned for backsliding into the same behavior that got you T-banned from AP2 as a whole. The "gaslighting" diffs are examples of that kind of unproductive behavior, but the rest of the rationale clearly describes that the T-ban is based on your behavior as a whole. Again, I don't see anything inappropriate about Awilley's behavior in issuing the T-ban. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Awilley, I don't see why you can't later remove it independently if you feel it's no longer necessary. All this ARCA has determined is that we don't think you acted inappropriately in applying the TBAN. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per my colleagues, I do not believe the topic ban was applied inappropriately, so decline to lift it. I also think this ARCA can be closed as withdrawn / denied, per Atsme's comments. Worm^TT(talk) 11:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000 (January 2021)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Awilley at 02:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=999183166#Mandruss

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Mandruss and Objective3000 are cautioned against circumventing edit restrictions, even when they are right on the content, and even when this is done somewhat unwittingly.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Objective3000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
El_C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[127]
[128]

Information about amendment request

Mandruss and Objective3000 are cautioned against circumventing edit restrictions, even when they are right on the content, and even when this is done somewhat unwittingly.

Remove the warning to Objective3000 (leaving only a warning for Mandruss)

Statement by Awilley[edit]

This incident is so inconsequential that normally I would ignore it, but as one of the parties has found it unfair enough to retire [129] and the other has explicitly welcomed Committee oversight [130] [131] [132] here I am. Both editors are people I respect who were acting in good faith, so I hope this can be resolved quickly and without any hard feelings or extra drama.

At issue is this statement by Objective3000 at WP:AE addressing Mandruss and the editor who filed the AE. Mandruss had been taken to AE for reverting the same content twice in 24 hrs and declining (on user talk) to self-revert. After Objective's comment, Mandruss self-reverted and Objective3000 re-reverted. (For what it's worth Mandruss was reverting content that had been recently added to the Lead that didn't have consensus on the talk page. [133])

El_C saw this as tag-team editing to circumvent a sanction and logged a warning for Objective3000 to that effect over my objections. I think Objective did a Good Thing in trying to resolve the problem in the most efficient way possible, and doesn't deserve a logged warning for that. Also note that the edit restriction on the article does not prohibit Objective3000, who had not made any other edits to that article in the preceding week, from reverting a revert, so O3000 did not violate any sanction or policy. ~Awilley (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: With respect, I think you're on target with the basic principles of preventing disruption, but I think you got it backwards on whether Objective3000's edit was disruptive.

Editor A added contentious ("attempted coup d'état") material to the Lead of a highly visible BLP. [134]
Mandruss reverted it with a detailed edit summary. [135]
Editor B re-added much of the same material without providing any justification in their edit summary. [136]
Mandruss reverts again (violation) [137] then self-reverts (back to no violation) [138]
Objective3000 reverts, restoring the status quo ante. (no violation) [139]

So yeah, that's technically tag-teaming, but is it disruptive? What's the alternative? Leave the contested material in the article until a consensus eventually forms to remove it? That's backwards. ~Awilley (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the people who have spent time reviewing this. Reflecting on this over the past couple of days, I think what bugs me most is our knee-jerk tendency to classify all tag-team editing as bad. The goodness/badness of tag-teaming, just like regular reverting, depends entirely on the context. It's good when used on vandalism, BLP violations, copyvios, obviously UNDUE/POV content, and edits that are clearly against consensus. It's bad when used indiscriminately to circumvent or disrupt the consensus building process. This is why it surprises me when so few people here, including some Arbitrators, have not commented on the context. If you look at nothing else, please look at this diff (including the edit summary). I realize it's tricky to decipher what text had been added to the Lead between all those references, so here's the text itself for your convenience:

The riots and storming of the Capitol were described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism.^[2]^[3]^[4] Some news outlets labeled the act as an attempted coup d'état by Trump.^[5]^[6] The incident was the first time the Capitol had been overrun since the 1814 burning of Washington by the British during the War of 1812.^[7]^[8]

There was not consensus to add this content, and the wikilinks to insurrection, sedition, domestic terrorism, burning of Washington, and coup d'état seem excessive for the Lead of top-level biography. This context makes some of the comments here less than logical. User:Levivich is aware that there was no consensus to add "coup d'etat" to the Lead, as he had voted at Talk:Donald_Trump#Coup_d'etat_attempt, yet he is here criticizing Ojective3000 and Mandruss. User:MONGO cites the fact that this is a high profile BLP as reason to warn O3000, while ignoring that O3000 was the one reverting the contentious content out of the BLP. I see at least two other users here criticizing O3000 who regularly complain about how other editors use recent news to stack the articles of conservative figures with negative information. I can see why User:Black Kite might be cynical, but I think it could be chalked up to our tendency to make snap judgements without looking at context. ~Awilley (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: Ha! That's fair. I picked the Mandruss revert diff because of the edit summary. The Objective3000 diff [140] is reverting basically the same thing minus the last sentence. Also a minor point of order: you say, "Sometimes, even when you're right, you need to step back and leave it to someone else. The language Mandruss removed was overly strong and UNDUE, but not the sort of obviously defamatory material whose removal justifies ignoring a 1RR restriction." I would point out that Objective3000 was that "someone else". There was no 1RR violation, as O3000 had not made any other edits to the article in the preceding week or following days.

My argument is definitely not that warning O3000 is outside of El_C's discretion. El_C can warn whomever they choose for whatever they feel like and it's within discretion. But it's problematic that the warning purports to be the result of an AE thread that had input from multiple admins. Of the 4 admins who commented in that thread, one (myself) explicitly opposed warning O3000, and two (User:Johnuniq and User:Floquenbeam expressed a general distaste for taking bureaucratic action but didn't comment specifically on O3000. (Johnuniq has now clarified here that they oppose the warning.) Only El_C supported the warning for O3000, so at best this is a close that misrepresents a consensus of admins.

A compromise outcome here that would fully satisfy me would be if User:El_C clarified in the close and in the log that the warning of O3000 specifically was under his own discretion and was not the result of the AE thread. That would make this an issue of acceptable admin discretion instead of a bad close. ~Awilley (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you El_C for doing that. Also, I apologize for having opened this without first approaching you on user talk. If I had to do it over I would have requested that, or that you re-open the thread and let someone else close. Unfortunately these options didn't occur to me until later. ~Awilley (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000[edit]

As the Eagles sang: “You can check out any time you like. But you can never leave" I was disappointed to see @CaptainEek: and @Power~enwiki: say I threw a fit and made a threat of retirement. I made no threat and had no fit. I simply put a retired template on my UTP and archived the rest so folks would know not to post. I made no suggestion of retirement in advance and no statement of my reasons. That is, no parting shot. I also decided not to file an appeal. Can’t one even quietly retire without nasty comments? I am also disappointed that @Levivich: would point to a year-old AE discussion claiming it was prior evidence of me tag-teaming. In fact, SashiRolls made a fallacious claim that five editors were tag-teaming and the result was an indef AP2 TBan for SashiRolls. Attacks against DS editors are extremely common, as can be seen by perusing the drama boards.

Now, as to the situation. DS articles absolutely must have additional restrictions. They are inundated with five-minute old, undigested news (as was the case here), fringe theories, vandalism, and white supremacists, et. al. from the Reddit site de jour spreading hate. But, these restrictions create a very difficult editing environment. Witness the resulting AP2 editor attrition from sanctions here. When six new editors appear from an off-Wiki site pushing the same POV (real tag-teaming), editors run up against 1RR very quickly. It is commonplace for an editor to request another editor make a revert to avoid a 1RR sanction. It is common to suggest a self-rvt after an accidental or iffy edit and then re-revert. I have even seen admins request reverts from other editors. (Most admins are smart enough to avoid DS articles entirely.) Further, DS rules differ by page and keep changing. That’s not a complaint. It’s a necessity.

I’ve talked to the problem. I don’t know the solution. I would suggest that RECENTISM in some form become a guideline instead of an essay. In this case, repeated attempts were made to add contentious “breaking news” to the lead of a highly viewed BLP with no consensus and no corresponding text in the body. The edit I reverted included the words insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism in a BLP about some guy named Donald. Personally, I agree with the words – but strongly believe this requires ATP discussion and some time to pass. Frankly, this was verging on a vandalism exception, which I think should nullify Mandruss’ warning. My attempt was to deescalate a situation, guide discussion to the ATP, and remove the BLP problem as quickly as possible. We must have a way to stop news from ending up in a BLP that is so new the ink is still wet.

As my retirement has been mentioned, I must say that my retirement was triggered by the sanction as a vague, logged warning along such lines makes editing in DS areas untenable. However, I also need the time IRL. So, reversal of the warning does not mean return. Not that my minor efforts matter to the project. But, I had a totally clean 13 year record, despite spending most of my time in highly controversial articles sprinkled with land mines (which usually results in acquiring some less than friendly coworkers) and would like that record back. I also think such sanctions have a chilling effect not helpful to the DS editing environment. We already walk on egg shells. Let us not weaponize them.

I would like to thank the three admins and Mandruss who have spoken out in my favor here, and apologize for the length. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: I say, get a rope.

@Black Kite: Yeah, it is ironic that my only sanction is for removing highly negative text about a man I’ve strongly disliked for a quarter of a century. Then again, I’ve removed dozens of negatives edits about him on various articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, there have been 73 edits to that article since Mandruss and I reverted -- and no one has restored it or added any text like it that I can find. We must have the ability to quickly deal with contentious, highly viewed, negative BLP material -- even if the article is about Mussolini (assuming he's still dead). I still believe that NPOV is paramount, particularly in BLPs. Guess I'm old-fashioned. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: said O3000 has now told us that Awilley's premise for this thread ... was based on an unwarranted inference. No, Awilley was correct. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: No one is treating this as the trial of the century. But, let me try to explain why this isn’t just a "Please don't do this again." I perform a huge number of reverts on many DS articles. There are two reasons for this. First, there are a huge number seriously poor edits by POV pushers, vandals, inexperienced editors, folks that want to be the first to add “breaking news”, etc. In the case of Trump, I think recent events show just how crazy some people are on this subject. The main Trump article has had over 500 edits in the last month. That is just one of the 141 Trump related articles. And that’s just one subject area in AP2. And AP2 is just one area in the DS arena. These attract an unusual number of bad edits. Secondly, I wake early in the morn when there are fewer editors around to clean up these articles. OK, the next part of the problem is that people hate to be reverted; so I make a lot of enemies. After all, if they heard it on InfoWars, it must be true. Further, there exist an unusual number of editors on these articles who have weaponized the drama boards, dragging other editors there in the hope of eliminating them. Most of these attempts fail because they simply don’t have anything to hang their hat on. This logged warning puts additional ammunition in their toolboxes. I’ve been dragged to AE, ANI, and AN3 several times, sometimes not even responding and never sanctioned. But IMO, this additional tool would make editing in the already dangerous DS areas too time-consuming and risky for my taste. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: In no way did I make a "dramatic" retirement. I made no statement. I made no threat. I requested no provisos. I simply retired using the standard template so editors wouldn't post on my UTP and wonder why I didn't respond. I decided not to appeal and retired before someone else appealed. There was no reason for me to wait for an appeal to end that I did not know would be initiated. If I say that I will not return if the record is cleaned, would that satisfy (rhetorical)? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C[edit]

After Mandruss explicitly refused to self-revert, Objective3000 proposed to them to "Self-rvt and I’ll rvt." Mandruss then self-reverted (diff), followed by Objective3000 reverting back a mere 2 minutes later (diff). Needless to say, I consider that to be inappropriate, enough to deem noting it in the log to be worthwhile. Note that my log entry (diff) noted Awilley's objection (which, honestly, I still don't really understand) as well as there being mitigating circumstances of an extraordinary nature (pertaining to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol). Finally, my AE report closure (diff), which reiterated all of that, also praised both Mandruss and Objective3000 for their long-term high-quality work at the AP2 topic area. I don't at all mind giving this particular violation a pass (makes sense), but to conclude that it wasn't actually a violation, that I cannot abide. Beyond all of that, I was sorry and quite shocked to learn that Objective3000 has retired over this. That's a serious loss to the project. My closing summary at the AE report stressed that I didn't intend for the warning to serve as a "blemish" on their "record," but I guess that wasn't enough. El_C 02:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, even though I understand the impetus, I don't really appreciate the snark. Anyway, Awilley was the only admin to have objected, there was no admins (plural) who did. And, as much as I tried to understand his objection, it just didn't make sense to me, so I acted. Now the matter is before the Committee, which is fine. As for your repeated objections to me having cited the WP:TAGTEAM essay — again, I don't understand how that is of import. As mentioned, I made use of discretionary sanctions to interpret there to have been a WP:GAME violation, which I never argued was intentionally underhanded. But leaving both you and Objective3000 (yes, and Awilley) somehow assured that no violation has taken place, without consequence, thereby leaving open the possibility of it having repeated at some point in the future — that is a problem, I challenge. Enough for me to act unilaterally. As for it constituting a "blemish" on their record — all Objective3000 would have to do if someone were to try to use it against them would be to quote me saying that it wasn't intended as such. Which is why I said it, in the 1st place. El_C 03:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, I would not have felt it worthwhile to register a warning in the log (because it is, indeed, otherwise trivial) had it not been for both Mandruss and Objective3000 insisting that no violation had taken place. That is the crux of the matter here. My position is that concluding the AE report in such a way would have been problematic. El_C 03:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, not at all. Maybe I'm failing to articulate this well enough, so I'll give it another go: it just didn't feel like I had much of a choice at the time. Despite the (admittedly) good faith intent behind the action and despite the ample discussion that followed soon thereafter, I was unable to conceive how else to meaningfully express to both Mandruss and Objective3000 that proposing that one self-reverts so that the other could in turn revert back was inappropriate. They were both adamant that it was perfectly fine. And so, my thinking was that if the AE report were to be closed without emphasizing this being otherwise, then what would stop it from repeating in the future?

As your colleague CaptainEek noted in their opening sentence: it is rare that we actually see tag teaming, but this seems a pretty clear case of it. Now, if other Committee members end up subscribing instead to your interpretation of it being only a debatable alleged violation, well, that would surprise me, but I will of course respect that finding. In a pragmatic sense, it would actually probably be better for the project if the Committee were to recommend for me to rescind the warnings, notwithstanding that I'd still consider that to be a logic and policy fail. Because then, Objective3000 may come out of retirement and Mandruss may end their wikibreak early. Which, hey, to me that's better than some abstract notion of principles.

Honestly, the level of vehemence and dismay brought by the warnings took me by surprise. I did not at all see it coming. I thought I was able to draft these gently enough so as to alleviate any serious discord. Obviously not. And, let's face it, the chances that either of them would do anything of the sort ever again seems especially remote now. So, as much as I might go on about the poor example that it would have set, such a thing seems to happen so rarely among established editors, maybe it would be for the best if I were prompted to backtrack. That having been said, in the realm of logic and policy interpretation, I still don't believe I was in error. El_C 08:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of this appeal being out of process, perhaps it's worth noting that, for my part, this is not a problem for me. As, perhaps, the most active admin on the AE front in the last few years (which I believe the AE noticeboard and AE log bear out), I not only welcome Committee scrutiny, I welcome extra Committee scrutiny. To me, that is an essential component of the overall WP:ADMINACCT imperative. El_C 18:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, there is no "animus" between myself an Awilley. We may often disagree on enforcement policy matters, but always in a cordial and professional way. Not once has it been otherwise. It is no secret that I consider his Enforced BRD (wow, it took me so long to locate that user subpage!) to be inferior to the Consensus required provision. And that him going on to supplant CR with EBRD on multiple key AP2 pages was in error and likely lacked the consensus for such a key change. Now, I don't want to put Awilley on the spot, but as I noted to him yesterday, part of the problem here followed from his half-hazard and inconsistent and novel construction and application of Committee-authorized sanctions. I'll quote from what I told him yesterday on my talk page: I think PackMecEng's observation pretty much nails it, Awilley. Beyond that, I echo what others have argued before: that you tend to overrely on sanction customization, which, at times, appears to be somewhat esoteric in nature and unclear, or otherwise less than consistent (diff). I vaguely remember, for example, a custom "no personal comments" sanction of his running into difficulties, I think because other admins couldn't figure out how to correctly enforce it. And don't get me wrong, I've indulged in some spectacular failures of custom AE sanctions. But the point is that I moved on from that (for years and years). Finally, on the whole CR versus EBRD matter, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that, while I had authored the WP:CRP supplementary page as a point of reference (at the request of Coffee), I was never involved in the formulation of it as a sanction. I actually don't even know how it came about, so if anyone does, please enlighten me. Now, imagine if the Committee was, somehow, prompted to take a close look into the whole CR versus EBRD realm of sanctions that it, itself, authorizes? Ooh, what do you say, incoming Committee? Kitty nudge?

El_C 19:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, it's unfortunate that you attribute favoritism to me without basis, because it's just plainly untrue. I, at least, would have acted exactly the same way had it been, say, MONGO and Atsme, instead of Mandruss and Objective3000. Which I'm pretty sure both MONGO and Atsme would vouch for (sorry for imposing, you two). El_C 22:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, in fairness, the log entry does provide a permanent link to my AE report closure which features me saying that. But point taken. El_C 23:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, about converting "warned" into "advised" (the log entry actually currently reads "cautioned") — I'm happy to do that. Also fine with having both warnings vacated, as Newyorkbrad proposes (although I do note that this appeal only seeks to rescind Objective3000's warning alone). I'm just a bit hesitant to act while the discussion at ARCA remains pending. But if you recommend for me to just go ahead with that, I'll get right on it. I'm good with anything that would keep the peace. If anything, my wording about it not intending to serve as a "blemish," about noting the "extraordinary mitigating circumstances" as well as the "objections," and so on — all of that, for all intents and purposes, was actually meant to be read as more of, as you put it, an "advised" (or "cautioned") rather than as a more standard "warned" (outright). But, certainly, happy to sharpen. And if reviewing Committee members feel I, myself, ought to be warned or cautioned or advised (or however you choose to phrase it), I'll of course take such review to heart. El_C 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the kind words, Atsme. That means a lot coming from an editor as accomplished as yourself. El_C 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, that 2-way IBAN was one of the spectacular sanction customization failures that I refer to in my kitty nudge comment above. And not because it was later converted to one-way (I actually know very little about that facet of it), but because it contained this novel first mover advantage which was a particularly poorly-formed idea on my part. Oh well, live and learn. But by contrast, with respect to this AE report closure and log entry, I actually still feel that those were fairly well thought-out. Which, of course, isn't to say that I am opposed to further improving their formulation (again, happy to do it). El_C 23:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Log entry addendum (subsection for emphasis)[edit]

I'm not sure why it took me this long (pride? hurt feelings?) —and first and foremost, I apologize to both Mandruss and Objective3000, for this lengthy delay, which reflects poorly on me— but I have now added an addendum to the log entry (diff), which, as mentioned there, I hope will serve to quell any further tension. As I also note in this addendum, if there is anything else I can say or do to better facilitate peace and harmony, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thanks, everyone, for all your patience, and sorry that my response to this challenge has been less than ideal. El_C 19:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly(ish), as my day is not yet done: thank you for being gracious, Mandruss. In response to your request, noting also that I just now noticed your earlier followup comment on my talk page (diff) — sorry I missed it, I just have gotten so many messages on my talk page since login out yesterday (in the double digits). Anyway, I was just about to say something to the effect that it is already being discussed by the clerks (diff), so that the request is unlikely to be closed without the contested passage being addressed. But now I see that Bishonen has removed it (diff), which was quickly followed by the clerk in question, Dreamy Jazz, reverting her (diff). Which, while it is within their rights (Dreamy Jazz as well as the other clerks), is unfortunate.

I will further emphasize that I have known you to be pretty much the preeminent editor for the Donald Trump article, and I have never picked up on there being any page ownership issues on your part (though, admittedly, my familiarity with the editing history of this most pivotal of biographies is highly limited). If anything, my sense is that the project owes you a debt of gratitude for your tireless work in that article over the years. Again, the absence of any serious evidence for the ownership claim that SPECIFICO directed toward you probably renders it an WP:ASPERSION. I won't quip over whether it should be counted as a personal attack outright, but I will note that the concluding remark to have you blocked for a month, to me, does come across as provocation. So, that is my position on the matter. Hope I was able to articulate it to your satisfaction. Sorry it has taken me so long to do so (broken record, I know). All the best, El_C 22:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, sounds sensible to me. I have updated the AE close and log per your suggestion (diff, diff). El_C 23:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, no apology needed, though I do appreciate it. If anything, I owe you an apology for the discourtesy of bluntly over-ruling you at that AE discussion rather than engaging further with you, as I should have. I also think it's important I emphasize that, while I've been critical about some of your actions (past and present), I do hope you realize that notwithstanding our various disagreements, I've always considered you to be an asset to the project and that hasn't changed. You and me — we're good.

BTW, thanks for picking up the slack at the Onceinawhile AE request. As I explained to both Onceinawhile and to the filing editor earlier today, I'm a bit burned out at this point from that seemingly-endless dispute, so I appreciate you stepping in. And... good luck in being able to clear that particular minefield — you're going to need it! (I'm still around if you need me, though.) Thanks again! All the best, El_C 07:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki[edit]

This was extremely blatant tag-team editing, and I don't think a threat of retirement is a good reason to revoke the justified note they were "cautioned against circumventing edit restrictions". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mandruss[edit]

I fail to see how such a warning could be NOT a blemish on one's record. But who knows, here where up is down, yellow is purple, and a lone admin can issue a logged warning against serious opposition from both admins and non, while citing nothing written but an obscure essay. I'm not smart enough to understand this. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[insert one sleep period]

I think a good unwritten rule would be: When an editor has established a long history of conscientious good faith behavior, they have earned the benefit of the doubt and should not receive a sanction for a good faith mistake. Not even a logged warning. Such contributors should not be victims of the crazy, convoluted body of scattered, incohesive rules that our revered system of crowdsourced self-governance created and has proven utterly incapable of addressing. Sanctions should be reserved for bad faith, since they affect the editor's reputation and may contribute to future sanctions in a sort of snowball effect. This should be intuitive to any experienced editor possessing any sense of fairness.

A logged warning clearly implies fault, and there is no fault in a human mistake. A logged warning should not be a mechanism for clarification, as it has been used by El_C in this case. If the rules prevented El_C from filing an ARCA request, the rules seriously need changing. If ARCA had provided clarification for future reference without implying fault on O3000's part, I don't think he would have retired.

The appropriate action at this stage is:

remove the warning – today
post an apology to O3000 at their UTP (unimportant who does this, as long as they speak for ArbCom)
proceed with clarification
change the rules so that any editor may file a request for clarification

―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz: Oh boy.

Mandruss had started to feel 'above the law' Unsupported by evidence or other editors (except perhaps Tataral, and he hasn't said that).
I had notified Mandruss about improper talk page behaviour You took a remarkably one-sided view of that little hatting skirmish. SPECIFICO was equally at fault there, and he acted first, but you "notified" only me. I've given this some thought and concluded that my recent well-founded public criticism of you here likely earned me a place on your shit list that caused you to read that situation in SPECIFICO's favor, giving him a pass. When I correctly informed you about your misuse of a warning template,[141] I expect that only moved me higher on your list and exacerbated the situation. I must be more careful about whose toes I correctly step on. Happy to discuss that with you at my UTP, but I don't think this is the time or place to dissect that "incident" further.
going against discretionary sanctions just because they felt they could - Clear misrepresentation, again calling into question your overall objectivity in the matter. I "went against discretionary sanctions" because I didn't understand how they applied in that case, and I think I've made this abundantly clear. I did not consciously go against discretionary sanctions, nor would I. Nobody is more careful about following the rules, and I make a concerted effort to understand them.
ignoring two different users' appeal to self-revert Right, neither of whom cited the passage from WP:EW that El_C quoted in the AE complaint. Editors often get such "appeal to self-revert" wrong. I looked at the both the content of the criticisms and the usernames of the editors making them, and I made a judgment call that I was more likely right than wrong, which turned out to be incorrect, and I decided to send this to AE. I did not "dare" you to go to AE. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that ultimately turning out to be wrong does not prove bad faith, and Mandruss's bad faith is how you have spun this entire episode.
the impression of feeling that normal rules don't apply to them All things considered, an entirely unjustified and unfair assessment in my opinion.
(I recognize in good faith that Mandruss may only be talking about Objective3000, not themselves) - Exactly, and that's crystal clear given that I requested a removal of O3000's warning, not mine.

I don't get how you felt it was appropriate to use this ARCA request about O3000's warning to take further swipes at me. I appreciate the compliments sprinkled throughout your distortions and unfounded criticisms, but that doesn't excuse them in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO commented about Awilley: ...and given Awilley's history of supervoting in various venues and with respect to various colleagues, I just think the appearance is obvious to those familiar with his history. I can't let that go without comment. First, I'm "familiar with his history" and do not share SPECIFICO's view. And SPECIFICO has a habit of asserting widespread support for his views and presuming to speak for others to bolster his arguments. I have asked him on at least three separate occasions, spanning perhaps three years, to speak only for himself. I would ask him to modify his comment accordingly; if he declines to do so, I trust that readers will take that part of his comment for what it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly clear for the record

Except in cases where it doesn't really matter (this was not such a case), I will never self-revert merely because an editor demands that I do so, unless they are one of the few editors high enough on my respect list that I would defer to their judgment. I'm more than capable of deference, but not with just any editor. Or any two editors. It's not a vote, and two editors can easily be wrong at the same time, especially when you consider that ulterior motives are sometimes present in these things. I doubt Jeppiz would blindly comply with a demand to self-revert if it didn't seem like a legitimate demand to Jeppiz. I doubt many competent editors would, particularly at that article. There is more at stake at that article than "going along to get along".

Other editors will need to show me something that makes it clear I'm in violation of the rules; that was not done until we got to AE, and not done by Jeppiz.

In my mind, my error was failing to have mastered the rules, not failing to blindly submit to the demand of two random editors. I don't expect my mind to be changed on that.

As I said at AE and here, I won't dispute my warning. But I will not have my integrity impugned without evidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: you should be considering the viewpoints of all editors – I did consider these editors' viewpoints. As I said above, I looked at the both the content of the criticisms and the usernames of the editors making them, and I made a judgment call that I was more likely right than wrong, which turned out to be incorrect, and I decided to send this to AE. Considering viewpoints does not mean blindly complying when you disagree with them. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed and alarmed at Jeppiz's continued attacks and failure to fairly evaluate what went on at my UTP. It's right here for anyone to review. I responded to the initial demand, If you are suggesting that this edit and this edit are the same, I suggest you take a closer look. They differ by 2,219 bytes if I'm not mistaken. It's eminently clear from that comment that I was under the impression that the edits needed to be the same content to be a violation. (Is Jeppiz suggesting that I was feigning ignorance at that point? For what purpose?) The constructive response would've been something like what El_C said at AE: reverts need not be "identical" to count as such. WP:EW is quite clear on this: in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period (bold is my emphasis). Nothing like that was said at my UTP; if it had been, I would have immediately self-reverted. Instead, off we went to AE. Again, Jeppiz is claiming that being shown to be wrong at AE shows bad faith before AE. That is simply wrong on multiple levels, including logic and ethics, and I will NEVER accept it. If the community feels that means I should be banned from Donald Trump, fine, and then I'll be considering my own retirement even more seriously than I ever have in the past. Perhaps it's time to finally put this madness behind me and find a more rewarding hobby. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: I feel he also has a serious WP:OWN ownership attitude that has been very counterproductive and obstructive. I feel that's a serious accusation and should not be made in support of a sanction proposal without evidence. If that's allowed, I have some feelings about you that might warrant a sanction. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: And in case it wasn't obvious, I'm respectfully asking you to strike. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thanks for the good faith effort, surely beats being dismissed completely. I'll point out the illogic in cautioning people to avoid doing things unwittingly – which requires one to know what they don't know – but I won't press the point. I won't make this particular mistake again. As for "anything else", you could do what you can to facilitate the removal of the evidence-free serious accusation against me (clear NPA vio, discussed at your UTP) before this is closed, even if the rules prevent you from fixing it yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Re:[142] Yes, notwithstanding any discussion you have had with other clerks, the accusation was serious enough to remove, which removal did not harm that discussion in any way. "Serious WP:OWN ownership attitude" is in fact a serious accusation, and more serious when accompanied by strong words like "very counterproductive and obstructive". This from an editor who has a long and contentious history with the target of his accusation, and whose motives here are properly suspect. Note that one editor has disputed the accusation, and none have supported it – not that that matters! There was no evidence presented!

Are we concerned that this would set a precedent that would increase the workload on arbs and clerks?

Praytell, what NPA vio would warrant removal – "You are a fucking imbecile"? That would be automatically dismissed by readers as obvious ad hominem attack by an angry editor who is not thinking clearly, not retained in their memory as something seemingly rational and possibly true.

William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 1 ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq[edit]

I had commented at the WP:AE case as an uninvolved admin and had made clear my distaste for the request for a sanction. El_C was technically correct but it is very undesirable to sanction people (yes, a logged warning is a sanction) when the incident is trivial and involves an issue where they are right. Their opponents managed to press the right buttons but they were blatantly wrong regarding what should happen in the article (they were padding the lead with not-news violations, no analysis by secondary sources, and nothing in the body of the article). Objective3000 made an honest statement (that Mandruss should self-revert to remove the technical problem so Objective3000 could repeat their edit)—that reflects how all topics under discretionary sanctions are handled. The rules of the game are known by all the participants and Objective3000's only mistake was to speak out loud. Furthermore, Objective3000 made a comment about their intentions whereas the issue (tag teaming) had already been implemented by their opponents—opponent 1 had inserted the padding; Mandruss reverted it; opponent 2 repeated the first edit after cutting out some of the excess. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

Q: Does Awilley actually have standing to file this amendment request? I thought that third-party appeals were not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to be clear that I'm not taking sides in this, as I haven't examined the situation is any great detail. I will say, however, that I am not at all in favor of DS being deprecated, as some commenters here are urging. I think they are a valuable tool that allows the wheels to keep turning, and that Wikipedia would become even more of a quagmire than it already sometimes is if they were gone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader[edit]

This ARCA seems to be out of process? WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals: Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction.

It is amusing that this discussion happens so frequently, and every time IAR is cited. IAR is useful in exceptional circumstances, but this isn’t exceptional, it’s fairly standard I think. What’s the point in a rule - one, I might add, I don’t personally think is a good one - if nobody wants to follow it? It should be scrapped. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (O3000)[edit]

This is not a new issue. A little less than a year ago, O3000's "tag teaming" with other editors (not Mandruss) was raised in an AE report (against another editor: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive261#SashiRolls, see, e.g., my statement and Pudeo's and also discussion on Pudeo's talk page at User talk:Pudeo#Personal attack). (I believe there were other related discussions but I don't remember where they are.) It was clear to me from those discussions that O3000 and others did not believe that planned or coordinated reverting (I'm not sure how else to phrase it) was tag team editing or a policy violation. I think O3000 left those discussions with the belief that his understanding of policy w/r/t "tag teaming" was correct—a reasonable belief given that nobody was sanctioned for it. I think this might help explain why O3000 would think there was nothing wrong with his actions and why he's taking this so hard.

So, although this does appear to be a third-party appeal, it might help prevent this sort of misunderstanding from happening in the future if Arbcom, or somebody, clarified "tag teaming" and edit warring policy, e.g. whether "self-revert and I'll revert" is OK or not. I'll also echo that O3000 wasn't the only editor who repeated another editor's edits: there is also the editor who reinstated a reverted bold edit. I think it's also an open question whether reinstating-after-revert is "tag teaming" (even when there isn't explicit on-wiki coordination).

These questions matter for any page under 1RR (and frankly are unevenly enforced by admins), so Arbcom could help by clarifying what is and is not "tag teaming" at least for DS 1RR restrictions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 09:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: I didn't claim it was prior evidence of you tag-teaming. Quite the opposite, in fact: I think O3000 left those discussions with the belief that his understanding of policy w/r/t "tag teaming" was correct—a reasonable belief given that nobody was sanctioned for it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Mandruss, I can't disagree more strongly with just about every word of your statement here. If that's what you truly believe, then I think you should be removed from that article. That's a totally uncollaborative approach you're advocating; you should be considering the viewpoints of all editors, not just those you happen to highly respect, and it shouldn't take an AE filing to get you there. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: With all due respect I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. Do you get that if you had listened to those two editors you weren't familiar with, and self-reverted, that the edit would have been re-reverted by O3000, by Specifico, by myself, or someone else, and there would have been no AE, no ARCA, no O3000 retiring, none of this drama. This is all because you were stubborn, because you didn't want to listen to, in your words, "random" editors. Next time, self-revert even if you disagree because it will save the rest of us a load of trouble. I don't have to unless a wikifriend or admin tells me! is no way to be. And don't kid yourself that there are more important things at stake with this article. The world will not end if the Donald Trump article has incorrect information for five minutes, or an hour, or even a whole day. That article is often disrupted, and your actions here caused more disruption. I really hope you realize self-reverting is the best way, even if you disagree. I learned this the one time I refused to self-revert and it resulted in a shit-load of unnecessary disruption (including a short pblock), and even though to this day I think I was right, I still should have just self-reverted, and thereby saved hours of editor time. And so it was here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO[edit]

Evidence presented seems to clearly indicate that this was tag teaming on one of our most viewed pages, a BLP to boot and the warning applied was not only of the most gentle of ones, but also one of the most necessary, considering the BLP in question in particular.--MONGO (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what Awilley hopes to accomplish by dragging my earnest comment in the mud and misattributing my meaning [143] but since he had the decency to ping. Not really sure why Awilley even bothered to bring my comment up...nobody gives a rats arse what I think anyway. Did I notice they removed a questionable edit...yes, I did indeed. Does that grant them a free pass or special consideration/exemption? In my opinion, No. Is this because this is a prominent BLP...maybe. So what? Everyone have a group hug and sing kumbaya now.--MONGO (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeppiz[edit]

As the editor who made the original enforcement request, I wish to acknowledge both El_C and Awilley for their thoughtful contributions. I felt El C made a balanced call in issuing a warning but no block to Mandruss and Objective3000. I also think Awilley has made a balanced request that the warning stays for Mandruss but it dropped for Objective3000. It's not for me to comment on that decision. My concern when filing the request was that Mandruss had started to feel 'above the law', I wish to emphasize that Mandruss has made a positive contribution to Wikipedia and I wish they continue their good work. However, my request wasn't based on a single incident. The day before the policy violation, I had notified Mandruss about improper talk page behaviour for (admittedly) hatting a talk page comment by a third user [144] just because a different user had hatted theirs; I hoped a UTP discussion would be enough.
The day after, when Mandruss ignored the discretionary sanctions, I again took it to their talk page, as did a third user. Mandruss themselves more or less challenged us to go to AE ("I am not going to self-revert. With great difficulty I have stopped short of 3RR vio. If you wish to file at AE, do as you must. One of us would learn something, and learning is never a bad thing.") [145]. This combination of hatting a third user just because they felt they could, going against discretionary sanctions just because they felt they could, ignoring two different users' appeal to self-revert and even daring us to go to AE combined to give the impression of feeling that normal rules don't apply to them. When I see Mandruss arguing here (I recognize in good faith that Mandruss may only be talking about Objective3000, not themselves) "When an editor has established a long history of conscientious good faith behaviour, they have earned the benefit of the doubt and should not receive a sanction for a good faith mistake. Not even a logged warning.", I see the same problem that led me to file the request, the belief that 'some editors are more equal than others'.
Mandruss is a diligent editor whose net contribution is overwhelmingly positive; I hope that they stay. On a general level, I don't believe in special treatment and think the policy Mandruss suggests of letting more experienced editors off for the same behaviour that newcomers would be punished for would set a bad precedent with wider implications than this case. Jeppiz (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: For a short reply to your post, I'm happy to say you're mistaken. You're not on my "shit-list", nor do I have one. Your warning to me in November was correct, and I didn't take it badly at all. Quite the contrary, I took a little voluntary time-out. You were entirely right. So no, there is nothing personal here, not against you and not against Objective3000 (with whom I don't recall ever having interacted before). I've already stated I consider you a valuable and constructive editor. I do feel your interactions the last couple of days, including the latest, to be less than ideal. That is not a personal criticism (everyone has up and downs) but perhaps you might consider what I wrote and whether there might some relevance in it. Have a nice day. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad:, what has been proposed is to vacate the warning for Objective3000 and to leave the one for Mandruss. Discussion here has focused on whether the tag-teaming also merited a warning, as that was the reason Objective3000 was warned. As for Mandruss, there is also the issue of the original enforcement request for both breaking discretionary sanctions and repeatedly refusing to self-revert when called upon to do so. Presumably this is why the proposal was to vacate the warning for Objective3000 and leave the one for Mandruss. Jeppiz (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed in the attitude Mandruss continues to take. Mandruss now claims that Other editors will need to show me something that makes it clear I'm in violation of the rules; that was not done until we got to AE, and not done by Jeppiz. This is not true; in my effort to solve the situation at Mandruss TP, I explicitly referred to the rules, even quoted the discretionary sanctions [146]. I won't stand for Mandruss trying to claim something else. Mandruss's entire last contribution [147] pushes the limits of WP:AGF when they claim they were unaware. Accepting that would require overlooking that:

1. When Mandruss edited Donald Trump, they failed to notice the large box informing all users, in bold, about the policy in question.[148]

2. When I explicitly cited the policy at Mandruss's TP [149], Mandruss failed to understand it.

3. When Tataral also informed Mandruss about the discretionary sanctions, Mandruss for a third time failed to understand it [150].

I admit to finding it hard to believe an intelligent user (and I consider Mandruss highly intelligent) really failed to notice all three times, not even think "Hm, many indications I did something wrong, perhaps I should check". Claiming otherwise is not credible. We have now had three days of bickering over this. While I think everyone can make mistakes some time, I'd also expect mature editors to accept their mistake at some point and move on. Mandruss's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour in the three days, not least their repeated shots at me for having filed the report, is disgraceful. Jeppiz (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

There have been many discussions in scattered venues about the need to reevaluate and reform DS and enforcement in American Politics. A tiny fraction of our Admin corps volunteer their time and attention and emotional involvement to the effort. The burden on them, including the ones involved in this case, is beyond what anyone could reasonably be expected to fulfil in a consistent and effective manner. So along with lots of good work, we also have inconsistencies, errors, and omissions. As has been acknowledged, this appeal is out of process. That's not a good thing except in an urgent situation unlike this one. I hope and expect that Arbcom will address the growing concern about DS and enforcement in general by initiating an orderly and systematic review and a discussion of its options to improve the entire system. The nature of DS is that it's discretionary. El C, as one of the most active volunteers in the area, makes lots of good faith judgments nearly continually, and I see nothing to be gained by validating Awilley's second guess of an action that was clearly within El C's authority. For the avoidance of doubt, if Mandruss had done the right thing and self-reverted when asked, there were several editors, including myself, who (without any prompting) would have independently removed the offending content. Despite that, to repeat, this "appeal" is out of process and should be declined. It's further complicated by Awilley's possibly animus toward El C, who was one of the Admins and experienced editors who opposed Awilley's unilateral replacement of "consensus required" with his bespoke "24-hour BRD" sanction. Not to accuse Awilley of such motivation, but the background should have been disclosed in this filing. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I do not think anyone would suggest that you resent Awilley's actions. The appearance of animus would be in the other direction only. It is more than unusual to ask Arbcom to overturn so routine a discretionary action, and given Awilley's history of supervoting in various venues and with respect to various colleagues, I just think the appearance is obvious to those familiar with his history. Best practices is to avoid any such possible appearance -- and again, the ARCA request can be considered solely on its merits. Thanks for your note. I have never seen you personalize or improperly involve yourself in any Admin action. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O3000 has now told us that Awilley's premise for this thread Statement by Awilley - This incident is so inconsequential that normally I would ignore it, but as one of the parties has found it unfair enough to retire was based on an unwarranted inference unrelated to what 03000 actually posted on his talk page. So I hope this extraordinary un-warning request can be set aside. The AE warning does nothing to diminish O3000's reputation or his excellent, collaborative editorial contributions, and it was clearly explained by El C and within his discretion.

I am distressed to see Mandruss' recent remarks here. Mandruss is by far the most active editor on the Donald Trump article and talk pages, at 22% of article and 27% of article talk page participation. Those are staggering figures of concentration for so active and widely edited pages. He has done lots of useful work -- more on housekeeping than article content, IMO, which is not his forte. He knows I appreciate his contributions, even to the extent that I urged him to run for Arbcom last fall. However, I feel he also has a serious WP:OWN ownership attitude that has been very counterproductive and obstructive. His views often prevail out of his sheer persistence and willingness to pursue his views to the point that others disengage. He said on his talk page that he's willing to learn from the experience of this AE complaint, and I think a page block of a month or so might help give him the breathing room to return refreshed and ready to collaborate. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted OWN above, I felt -- evidently incorrectly -- that Mandruss's statements and behavior documented in this ARCA matter supported my interpretation that he behaves as if from a privileged position in that article of the kind referened in OWN. But I hear several editors telling me I should have provided diffs in my section, so I'll provide a few I can quickly locate. In this AE matter, the problem was created bu Mandruss' refusal to self-revert after two editors brought his violation to his attention. As he says in his section on this page, Mandruss feels he can choose to deprecate the concerns of editors he doesn't know and respect, to wit the two who informed him of his violation. I think that's not our standard. Is the dominant editor on a page privileged to reject non-preferred editors out of hand? Then we have Mandruss' trying to tell other experienced editors what to do, e.g. here, following @User:Valjean to his talk page with what I consider an inappropriate tone of privilege and an expectation of control. There are the recent discussions of "coup attempt. Note that this thread does not concern placing such text in the lead, which was the subject of a November discussion, and that it was about an edit and reference that pre-dated the attack on the Capitol. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Coup_d'etat_attempt this thread, including the hatted portion. In an unrelated discussion, both as to placement RS verification and WEIGHT, there had been previous attempts to put "coup" in the lead and back in November. See Mandruss in this thread with different sourcing and facts, about content that I considered UNDUE at the time.
So what I see here is an editor who is the most active presence on the page, who has not taken the responsibility to ensure he understands the page restrictions. And in the recent "coup d'etat" discussion in the first link above, he reverts it citing a nonexistent consensus to omit, presumably based on the inconclusive lead text discussion from months ago, giving no substantive reason other than his personal assertion of "consensus". He then continues to oppose the edit at some length before finally coming to my talk page and asking how he can see the cited Washington Post article, becuase he doesn't have access. It's up to him whether a WaPo subscription is worth the $26, but it's remarkable he would feel entitled to oppose text related to sourcing he has not seen. I question whether anyone can be highly active and opinionated at the AP articles without comprehensive media access across the spectrum. So again: To me, the tone and substance of Mandruss' behavior as documented at AE and in his words on this page were, combined with his edit stats, supporting my view that he acts from a sense of privilege that I called OWN. I've provided the above in response to reactions that my view was evidence free. I may or may not be correct, but I abhor ASPERSIONS and I hope I've at least corrected that, if not convinced anyone on the merits. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme[edit]

Warnings are minimal, not a biggy to sweat over. Regardless, this case exemplifies why ArbCom needs to revoke DS/AE. I'm not here to criticize any of the actions taken by individual admins or arbs; rather, I would like for ArbCom to look closer at the DS/AE monster that we've had to deal with in recent years. If behavioral disruption was the only issue, a simple admin action would have resolved the problem. If another admin felt the remedy was too severe or undeserved, then a discussion between the two would have likely led to a compromise instead of wasting valuable time here making this into a complicated case. I'm also not taking a position relative to any of the named editors in this case. I admit that I am biased against DS/AE because of what I perceive to be abuse/POV creep and what has happened to me - not that it has happened in this case. Houston, we have a problem. Atsme 💬 📧 17:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ping - I will certainly vouch for El C and add that from my perspective he is not a biased, hair-trigger admin. He applies common sense, exercises good judgment, and has done his best to comply with NPOV and BLP. I have seen him in action. I also disagree with Bishonen's characterization of CaptainEek. From my perspective, they did nothing "shameful", are not biased or overly critical. I appreciate their straightforwardness in calling a spade a spade. I am of the mind that we have a few admins who are much too close to the AP2 topic area, and may not even realize they are taking sides, or may inadvertently be subjecting themselves to POV creep. Having preconceived notions is not too unlike being prejudiced, and that is a problem ArbCom can resolve with this fresh new team, and one of the main reasons so many of us elected them to ArbCom. Perhaps a good place to start cleaning things up is with a bit of research to validate or debunk what was reported in this article and quite a few other articles online that have criticized our neutral position. I'm sure the community would appreciate a more focused ear on what DGG, and even Jimbo, has been saying over the past few years. Bottomline - this was merely a warning, and just look at the drama it created. It speaks volumes considering that so many other warnings go relatively unnoticed, and so do some unilateral, sole discretion imposed t-bans. Atsme 💬 📧 12:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about this amendment request after it was closed at ARCA. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications under Important Notes it states: 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. Am I reading that wrong, or did miss the part that says admins are allowed to do that, just not editors? If I'm not mistaken, the discussion was closed with an issued warning to both - that was the appeal - so how can this be happening now? Atsme 💬 📧 16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC) ^{It was at AE, not ARCA; the rollercoaster went too fast for me. 21:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]
Barkeep49, my apologies - it went from AE to ARCA - it's so damn confusing. At least it has been noted that we are discussing warnings - that part I got. Everything else is a time sink, and I blame DS for that - DS is the disruption so site ban it. I feel bad for ArbCom and what they're having to deal with because simple remedies no longer work as a result of alliances, biases, prejudices, whatever - in a nutshell POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise. Causes & political parties aside, admins need to focus on actual disruption, not perceived - disruption does not mean an opposing view - it means disruption - basically stuff like edit warring. Leave the TPs alone - let editors discuss as long as they don't screw-up the article! If there are blatant PAs, then step in...simple. Why is it so difficult? Again, my apologies for sounding-off. Eggishorn said it much more eloguently (and that's why he's such a great closer - most of the time. 😊) Atsme 💬 📧 20:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikieditor19920[edit]

It's baffling that this is even up for re-discussion. The on-Wiki communications between the two editors and reversions in tandem were specifically meant to do a technical end run around WP:DS limits on reversions. Had any other user engaged in this behavior, it would've led to a sanction, but favoritism and bias lead not only to a ridiculously soft warning at WP:AE, but admins actively trying to overturn even that empty warning. The standards for conduct on Wikipedia are slipping towards being entirely meaningless for a small circle of editors, including Objective3000 and Mandruss, who've been editing for a sufficient period of time are friendly with the right parties. These political games and bending of the rules are what turns people away from the site. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a "nice" comment from @Bishonen:, who's totally ignored whether or not the warning was justified in light of the evidence and simply attacked any editor critical of O3000. Black Kite's comment about only "conservative editors" having a problem with blatant tagteaming is equally ridiculous.

I've seen this exact same behavior of repeatedly reverting without accounting for objections from Objective3000 at other AP-32 articles, as with Mandruss at the Donald Trump article with regard to changes to the lead. To frame this open coordination in skirting 1RR as an aberration does not ring true, and the excuses being touted ("he's a great editor anyway!" "He was 'right' on the content issue!" "The only editors who have a problem with what he did have an agenda!" "He made the violation in good faith!") are embarrassingly thin. Why is it being assumed that Objective3000 was correct on the content issue? Where was the consensus to establish as much?

If any newbie editor or someone perceived as "wrong" made those excuses, they'd be laughed out of the room. But as I pointed out, this kind of stuff is too often swept under the rug for certain editors. El_C at least tried to be objective and strike a balance in the "warning," which included far too many qualifications IMO, but Awilley is refusing to even acknowledge the violation and is acting more like an advocate rather than a neutral party. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The defiant statement by Mandruss here confirms everything I said and worse. A few months ago, I attempted to alter wording in the lead of Donald Trump to attribute statements recently made in the press. Mandruss persistently and repeatedly reverted me and other editors who attempted to make the change, waived off objections with an air of authority and self-assuredness, and refused to engage in any collaborative discussion. This is a user who is not interested in working with others and only respects rules where they see the other editor as deserving of their respect (presumably agreeing with them). WP:NOTHERE much? This is an abhorrent attitude and behavior, and it should be completely unacceptable that Objective3000 would enable that behavior by openly tagteaming to avoid the rules.

It is shameful that some admins defend or overlook this superior attitude and conduct—some editors believe they are above the rules, and because of the bad judgment of some administrators who refuse to sanction them for it, they are right. Not only should the warning issued by El_C not be revisited, there should be sanctions for both editors on the table. Note that Mandruss committed a double DS violation here - first the 1RR, and then tag-teaming. I would attribute the 1RR to O3000 as well, since that's typically how tagteaming is viewed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhododendrites[edit]

Against my better judgment, I'm editing ARCA for the first time, not because I have a strong opinion about this particular case but because I've been thinking about sock/meat puppetry a lot lately and find the way our WP:MEAT policy is being interpreted here curious.

My understanding of tag teaming, which is a variety of meat puppetry, is that it's not when one person who already edits an article in good faith tries to deescalate a situation by offering to take ownership of an edit (one which they may well have made anyway) from someone else who already edits the article in good faith.

If Mandruss went to the talk page instead of editing again and said "this edit should be reverted because XYZ, but I can't," and O3000 saw that and said "ok, I'll do it," would we still be talking about meat puppetry? It seems like standard coordination on a talk page -- the sort that's especially necessary when there are article-level restrictions. If the difference has to do only with the way O3000 phrased it rather than any practical or intentional difference, I'm not sure that's a road we want to go down. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite[edit]

I agree in thinking that O3000 was acting in good faith here. Let's face it, if another editor had reverted Mandruss's edit and O3000 had reverted back, there would be no issue here. The really ironic thing is that, looking above, there are some more right-leaning editors criticising O3000 here despite the fact that they removed excessive negative information from the lead of Trump's article. If I was a cynic, I'd say that they're basing their comments on who did the reverting rather than the actual circumstances and specific content. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen[edit]

@CaptainEek: Your comment implies that O3000 by posting a "retired" template 'threw a fit' and 'threw his toys out of the pram' (venerable Wikipedia clichés that do no credit to your sense of style). That's shameful in my opinion. If you didn't intend that implication, please take more care when you write.

@El C: You say "As for it constituting a "blemish" on their record — all Objective3000 would have to do if someone were to try to use it against them would be to quote me saying that it wasn't intended as such. Which is why I said it, in the 1st place." It would be a lot more useful to say it in the log, IMO. Really a lot. I know the log entry is already long, but you could have said it instead of "Sorry for the unusual length of this log entry", because, you know, what use is that?

The amount of assumption of bad faith towards Mandruss, O3000, El C, admins in general, and the entirety of Wikipedia in Wikieditor19920's comment above leaves a bad taste. Everybody can comment here, no doubt, and so we get some low-water marks. Unless an arb or clerk feels like drawing the line somewhere? Bishonen | tålk 23:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by DGG[edit]

This is an excellent illustration of the dilemmas that will be produced by any system that provides a first-mover (or second-mover) advantage. DS is the worst of them, but even 3RR can do that, and even our basic BRD procedure. The fairness of these systems depends upon preventing one contributor maneuvering to put the other at the wrong end of the advantage. At present any POV editor who realizes how they work can sometimes manage to do that, unless up against an equally clever opponent. Ensuring that the encyclopedia has NPOV content should not be a game of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

actually, DS as extended by the sort of restrictions that Awilley was at first using is even worse than ordinary DS. DS has at least some history of interpretation to clarify its meaning. Idiosyncratic restrictions by individual admins greatly widens the possibilities for unfairness and the difficulties of interpretation. (I want to recognize that Awillley is no longer using some of the restrictions that have previously been discussed) . I'm sure his motivation was an attempt to find a more equitable procedure, so it was a reasonable try at innovation-- but the reason DS has stayed around so long is that finding a replacement has not been easy. But this has been so much recently that I think there will be some suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Plea for Sanity by Eggishorn[edit]

Oh for <insert deity here>'s sake, people, it was a warning! warning: NOUN 1: statement or event that indicates a possible or impending danger, problem, or other unpleasant situation. Not a sanction nor a block nor a ban. Nothing more than a: "Please don't do this again." There is no reason to treat this as the wiki-Trial of the Century and throw any of these accusations and animosities around. I wonder if this is our version of the Bike Shed Principle; we know we can't personally do much about those <insert collective insult here> in Washington/ Sacramento/ Canberra/ wherever but we can be damned sure we'll treat the project as if lives depended on our edits. Reality check: Nobody's life depends on our edits. That editors are taking them as seriously as this discussion does is way out of whack with the reality we see around us. Chill. Go outside. Take a breath. Nobody's reputation was permanently besmirched before this mess began and it shouldn't be now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]

This is one of the more trivial "sanctions" I've seen in AP2 enforcement, especially for what is a clear cut DS violation. The action seems well within El_C's discretion especially given the comments of the other commenting administrators. I and others have long called for a rework of the restrictions in AP2, but until that happens they ought to be enforced evenly. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am always astounded at Tryptofish’s ability to bring up a banned editor they used to be I-ban’d with ~~and grave danced over~~, for no obvious reason or point, at many discussions they participate in. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish (O3000)[edit]

I've been thinking about the first paragraph of Bishonen's statement above, and I agree with what she said there. In this ARCA, there is no serious claim that O3000 is a long-term abuser who has tried the community's patience one time too many. The range of opinions goes approximately from it having been something for which a warning was justified, to it having been something where the warning should be vacated, but in any case there is a consensus that overall O3000 has been a valued member of the community. As such, CaptainEek, I'm troubled by your language about fit throwing and toys from a pram. Although I don't want to blow it out of proportion, I would ask that you reconsider the way that you said it. Wikipedia is suffering from a coarsening of the language that editors use when speaking of one another, and from a lack of sensitivity to when an editor is genuinely and in good faith upset. I would hope that Arbitrators would seek to set a good example. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CaptainEek. That was well-said.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at this some more, I think it's really sad that multiple editors, and particularly O3000, have been made to feel badly because what they wanted to do was to keep to the spirit of WP:BLP when doing so ran up against the mechanical format of 1RR. It seems that en-Wiki has reached the stage where "1RR under DS is a bright line and so we must always act, no room for discretion or communication" has taken priority over "BLP means we should not keep crap in mainspace". El C, you probably remember when, at an AE (about someone whose AE history is predictably misrepresented in another statement here), you issued a 2-way IBAN to me and that other person, and told me that all I had to do was to send people who criticized me to you, and you would tell them not to hold it against me. Sounds familiar in this context, doesn't it? And AE pretty soon thereafter reversed it for me and made it 1-way. Seems like something that is becoming ripe for a re-think. I'd like O3000 to hear my good wishes to him, and El C to hear my encouragement to make the fixes he has already mentioned, and for all of us to wrap this up and treat one another better than we have been doing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, thanks for those comments, which I appreciate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG[edit]

The word "uprecedented" is often overused, but I think it applies to the current environment. People are acting in good faith, with a perceived urgency that is heightened by a political environment for which we have no templates, no past experience.

I believe the correct response here is that everybody was doing their best, and there should be no indelible consequences for any of it. IMO Newyorkbrad is exactly correct, and we should be very careful right now not to do things with lasting consequences for long-term productive members of the community who are clearly acting in good faith.

To err is human and to attribute malice virtually inescapable when it's almost impossible not to have an opinion on the content itself, as here. I am taking time out because I have PTSD and find the present real world situation almost impossible to handle, but I want to add my no-doubt superfluous $0.02 in support of an editor with whom I often disagree but whose good faith I have never had cause to doubt. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Warning of Objective3000: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Mandruss, in discussion on clerk-l an arbitrator requested that the removal be reverted. This was because admins can take action on serious violations of policy but this one does not rise to that level.
Clerks and arbitrators should be the only editors editing outside their section. Admins can take action in serious cases of violation of policy, but as this was deemed not serious, the admin editing outside their section was reverted. The reversion does not endorse the statements by SPECIFICO. They should have provided diffs to support their claim, and I encourage SPECIFICO to support their claims. You may of course make your case directly to arbcom at arbcom-enwikimedia.org or clerks mailing list at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org if you wish to discuss this privately. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning of Objective3000: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

It is rare that we actually see tag teaming, but this seems a pretty clear case of it. I am aware that tag teaming is not policy, but then again, neither is WP:NOTHERE, and yet the latter is used many times daily in enforcement. The spirit of the law is more important than the letter on Wikipedia. So whats the spirit of the law? To prevent disruption. Tag teaming seems to be an especially insidious form of disruption, as it uses multiple people to act almost as one to evade our usual restrictions. I wonder, would Mandruss have self reverted had O3000 not suggested they would immediately revert the edit back? I think Mandruss and O3000 are both excellent contributors, but to evade sanction by gaming the system does not sit right with me. I also note that El C went very light here. By all rights, El C could have easily blocked both of them, but opted to just give a warning. El C also took great pains to note that this warning is not meant as a blemish. And lets be honest, what does a warning really mean? Here on Wiki, it is little more than a reminder. It may make future enforcement easier, but it has little practical impact. I am also hesitant to rescind a warning merely on the basis that it made a user quit. I am sad to see O3000 driven away, and hope they will return. However, if users know all they have to do ~~is throw a fit~~ retire to get a sanction removed, we'll see a lot more retirement ~~toys being thrown out of the pram~~. In conclusion, I don't particularly see how this warning was wrong, and am hesitant to lift it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To BMK's point: on a technicality, yes only subjects of a sanction can appeal. But this is already a super technical situation, and I think we can let that slide as this has brought up a novel and relevant point of contention. Also, O3000 has nominally retired (so they can't appeal), and Mandruss seems to be appreciative of this review. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comments on retirement have received a fair amount of feedback. I hope O3000 reconsiders their retirement, and my aim was not to call them out: rather the practice of the "dramatic retirement" in general. We should never take an action just to appease a retiring editor or try to get them to return. If we were to do that, then retirement could be used as leverage. I think the practice of dramatic retirement is ultimately detrimental to the project, and we should not encourage it.
  - My choice of using WP:PRAM and its wording was not particularly helpful, and have changed my statement. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Decline El C has updated the log warning, and I see nothing else to be done here. The warning was well within El C's administrative discretion, even if as Barkeep points out that is not how everyone would have closed it. There has been mention of DS reform (such as Mandruss suggesting relaxing the rules on who may appeal, and mention of the first mover advantage), and I encourage folks to keep thinking about that. I also agree with Barkeep that we should encourage consensus building at AE, but that we also need to support admins in making difficult decisions. I think we will tackle DS reform this year, but this is not the time: more preparation is needed on the committee's end first. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting further statements. My preliminary reaction is to say first I appreciate El C's, and other administrators', desire to maintain decorum and order on a difficult article at a difficult time. (I also say to El C that it may look like I'm piling onto you because we disagreed on an unrelated matter a few months ago, but it's just a coincidence, and it's my job to comment here.) On the substance, I believe Objective3000 was acting with good intentions and in good faith, and as El C himself observes, Objective3000's overall editing history is a positive one. El C also observes that any violation by Objective3000 took place at least "somewhat unwittingly." I consistently believe that discussion rather than a logged sanction, even a warning, is the better approach for a first, debatable alleged violation by a good-faith editor with a record of positive contributions in the topic-area. Subject to others' opinions, I am inclined to recommend that El C consider withdrawing the warning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Still awaiting further comments, but I'm inclined to move to vacate the warnings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing the further discussion, I vote that both warnings—even as modified by El C, which I appreciate—should be stricken from the log. However, I'm not going to make a formal motion to do that unless at least one other arbitrator agrees with me. After all, it wouldn't help alleviate the demoralization that the warnings have caused if a motion to vacate them were voted down 1 to 11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (As a side comment, I note that the useful discussion we have had here wouldn't have been possible either in RfAr or on AE because of rigid the word limits in those locations. There may be a lesson there, to be learned another day.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think an appeal by an uninvolved admin who participated in an AE discussion is allowed - I think to say otherwise would be to further cement a first mover advantage. Considering what obligations admins have to achieve consensus is at the top of my priority list when this committee examines DS but I don't see any issue in how El C handled this under our current procedures. The formal warning is a reasonable outcome of that thread even if it isn't how I'd have closed it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: I'm confused by your most recent ARCA comment. This hadn't been appealed to the committee before. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley: you are correct that there is tons to read as an arb (especially in January). Alas if only the issue here was I hadn't read everything - I did examine the diffs before making my comment. Ultimately I think for discretionary sanctions to work ArbCom needs to support administrators who are making reasonable use of their discretion. So I would not have personally warned these users and whatever comment I left I would not have formally logged. However, as an arbitrator hearing an appeal I think it would be counterproductive to substitute my judgement as long as the administrator acted with-in reasonable boundaries. I do not see El C having acted against consensus of other admins, namely because one hadn't formed, in closing this report with a warning. Our current procedures do allow for an admin to close AE requests in these circumstances. So the question, for me, becomes whether this action is with-in the bounds of normal administrator latitude. For me the answer is yes. Personally, I would like to see more of an obligation at AE for administrators to form and act with consensus when closing reports but for that to happen we need to do our broader look at DS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts:
Normally, Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard provision: appeals and modifications) In this case, and in other cases where an uninvolved administrator at AE who voiced disagreement with the action taken brings us an ARCA appeal, I am inclined to disregard this provision and consider the third-party appeal. I'm willing to formalize this into our procedures if need be, but I'd prefer to wait for broader DS reform. Because this appeal was not brought by Objective3000, if we decline this appeal, the provision that "further substantive review at any forum is barred" should not apply.
Objective3000 did not violate the restriction was written. However, AMPOL is a DS area, and on the whole, it was not an abuse of administrative discretion to conclude that coordination to circumvent a 1RR restriction (even if well-intentioned) is inappropriate.
Previous committee decisions at ARCA have established that this committee will generally only reverse sanctions for abuse of administrative discretion, or something at that approximate level of review, absent exceptional circumstances. This is necessary because AE is designed to reduce the load on this committee – imagine if every AE sanction was appealed here – and so ArbCom acts mostly as a safety valve, not as a venue of first resort. Therefore, absent exceptional circumstances, we should not overturn this warning.
Administrators should not act contrary to a clear consensus of their colleagues at AE. I don't know if the consensus in this case was clearly against the warning – a warning itself is a very light sanction. (According to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Dismissing an enforcement request, a warning is actually not a sanction; it counts as "no action".)
Overall, I don't know where I come down on this appeal. If El C downgraded this to "advice" ("Objective3000 is advised to ...") I would decline this appeal for sure. Right now, I'm inclined to decline this appeal without prejudice towards an appeal at AE or AN, but of course that strikes me as grossly excessive bureaucracy. It may be a good push to make explicit in our procedures that appeals to ArbCom via ARCA are generally assessed deferentially to the enforcing administrator (to reduce the number of appeals that are unfortunately resolved on procedural grounds), and that appeals from sanctions imposed at AE can still be appealed at AE (especially if administrators at AE were opposed to the original sanction). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also want to note to Objective3000 that I deeply appreciate your work and am sorry that you've been caught in the crosshairs of an ARCA that I would resolve mostly on procedural grounds. An AE warning does not reflect on the quality of your contributions to this area or to the project, and my sincere hope is that this warning will not continue to discourage you from editing. If you need to take a break from Wikipedia, I completely understand – but I look forward to seeing you back when you're up for it. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Insofar as this request is not already withdrawn (Awilley seems to indicate they are satisfied), I would decline to take action on this appeal as the underlying action falls within administrative discretion, with thanks to all for accommodating this process. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Largely "per Kevin". This is much ado about very little, and what little there is was well within administrative discretion. El C has been transparent about not wanting this logging to constitute a stain on Objective3000's record, and I appreciate the willingness to further moderate the language in the log. I'm inclined to decline. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley: I was aware of the context, but don't begrudge your request for further comment. Besides echoing Barkeep's response, I'll say that a high-profile BLP is indeed a reason for everyone to act more cautiously. The language on the article has settled to something acceptable, and that's just how the encyclopedia works. Sometimes, even when you're right, you need to step back and leave it to someone else. The language Mandruss removed was overly strong and UNDUE, but not the sort of obviously defamatory material whose removal justifies ignoring a 1RR restriction.

While I really wish we could leave this at "so inconsequential that normally [you] would ignore it", I'll leave the door open for you to elaborate on why a diff showing a removal from Mandruss would be your preferred "if you look at nothing else" in a request to remove a warning to another editor. I want to keep an open mind here and to acknowledge that there may be angles I haven't considered, but I think there's a very steep hill to climb if you're trying to argue El C's action wasn't within the acceptable bounds of an administrator's discretion. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formally decline now that it appears we're at a satisfactory resolution. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: American politics 2 (January 2021)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Interstellarity at 19:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

Change the sanctions to affect American politics to a later date. I recommend 1944, but I am open to other interpretations.

Statement by Interstellarity[edit]

It's been over five years since the ammendment to set sanctions on post-1932 American politics went in place. When we look at historical events from a distant future, we can get a better idea on how the event affected history. I am not requesting to repeal these sanctions, I am requesting that the sanction be lowered to something like 1944. It is easier to write an article on a president such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln then someone like Donald Trump or Joe Biden because the news can be too biased to get the big picture. I imagine the news was also biased back then, but we have modern historical evaluations on the event that help us to write better articles. That's how I feel about this in a nutshell. Interstellarity (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk)[edit]

1932 really is still the beginning of contemporary US politics. It is when FDR was first elected, and FDR's policy approaches are still a political battleground in the present day. William Leuchtenburg's book In the Shadow of FDR traces FDR's influence through all the subsequent US presidents up to Obama (in the 2009 edition). I read it for a school requirement and found it enlightening. If there is good cause to restrict someone from editing about post-FDR US politics, they probably shouldn't be editing about the FDR era either. The stuff that happened then is still contentious in today's partisan battlegrounds. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geogene[edit]

I think any cutoff year you choose will potentially be debatable. But is the current 1932 cutoff already causing problems that need to be addressed? If so, this request would be more compelling with evidence and examples of those problems. Geogene (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite[edit]

I don't think I've ever processed an AP2 dispute or sanction where the locus of dispute was something that happened between 1932 and 1944 (indeed the vast majority are centred on current issues). That's not to say they don't exist, but I think I'd like to see the diffs before changing the cutoff date. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dweller[edit]

Echoing Black Kite to an extent, I'm eager to see what are the loci of dispute now, but I'll go further. This is incredibly broad brush and doesn't feel like a good measure at all. Having briefly looked into the morass of the case that prompted it, I'm wondering if Arbcom at the time were both rather exasperated and reluctant to issue a huge swathe of personal sanctions. Anyway, that's speculation. More to the point, I feel this measure is bad for Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter (American politics 2)[edit]

All sanctions (theoretically) must be recorded in the log at WP:ACDSLOG. For 2020, I see there only two articles which relate to something else than post-1990 politics: Frank Rizzo which I have protected myself (and this is the only time I remember involving AP2 for not contemporary politics, and I am not shy in imposing AE sanctions), and Three Red Banners which is probably there in error (I do not see how it is related to AP2). In any case, both articles are post-1950.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki[edit]

I support changing this, to some date not after 1992. From a quick glance, with the one exception Ymblanter noted, the oldest topic I found discussed in the sanctions log was Vince Foster. The vast majority of American Politics issues relate to current events, but the Clintons are still regularly the subject of contentious discussion. There was a preference for a wide buffer region in the original imposition of AP2 to avoid doubt in marginal cases; I think either 1960 or 1980 would be reasonable choices. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a stretch to say that Vince Foster would be covered under post-2010 American Politics; we don't have "broadly construed" here and he died in 1993. Sure, Trump talked about him, but having the sanctions be "everything Trump talks about" seems like the wrong way to include topics in the sanctions; in that case rather than a year we might as well just say "current". power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on any RFC, but the difference between 1980/1988/1992 doesn't seem important enough to justify one. OK, if several ARBCOM members feel 1932/1944 or even 1960 is the right year, do an RFC, but if the exact post-Nixon and pre-Clinton year is the issue, I encourage ARBCOM to hash it out amongst yourselves. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

The difference between starting in 1932 and starting in 1944 is that the period from 1932 to 1944 featured FDR and the New Deal, isolationism regarding involvement in World War II, the attempt at Supreme Court packing, the American Nazi movement and the anti-Nazi boycotts -- all of which have tendrils which connect them to current American politics. Is MAGA isolationism re-born? Will the Democrats attempt to counter Trump's Supreme Court nominations by packing the court? Is the alt-right the re-birth of an American fascist movement? What do we do about the newly powerful populist movement in Europe? How involved should the US government be in controlling the effects of capitalism? These questions are all intimately connected to what happened from 1932 to 1944, which argues against changing the starting point. 1932 does not seem to me to be an arbitrary choice, but the actual beginning of modern American politics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas it's arguable that 1944 (1945, really) is the start of the post-war international structure (the UN, NATO, World Bank, IMF etc.), so it would make sense for a discretionary sanctions regime which was concerned with modern international geo-politics. It doesn't really make all the much sense as a starting point for American politics, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn's data is interesting. I would only suggest that if the start date is moved up, admins take note of disputes and disruption which would have been covered if the date hadn't been adjusted, if any. I still don't see any real harm in leaving the start date where it is, though, under the rubric "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per "range of choices", leaving it at 1932 should not be forgotten. I agree that an RfC should be held before an ArbCom motion, as a content matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nosebagbear[edit]

I'm concerned by people stating that Interstellarity should be providing cases of 1932-1944 that this clarification would resolve. Quite the opposite - everyone else should be being required to provide cases that demonstrate that that set of years should also be covered by DS. It's supposed to cover the minimum possible to avoid issues. I actually think a good case could be made for moving it up to, say, the start of the Vietnam war, and if we're happy to have a discussion on that, that's great, but for the meantime, I'm a strong supporter. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, since there is now some numerical data and much more arb discussion, I would say my preference would now be 1989 onwards/post-1988 (as first choice). I'm not sure a full RfC is beneficial, but NYB's suggestion of holding up voting for a week and just asking at various community boards for comments would also serve well. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eggishorn[edit]

I think everyone is agreed that the cutoff of 1932 is arbitrary and that any year that the ArbCom of the time picked would necessarily be arbitrary. Any other date would also be arbitrary but need not be equally arbitrary; i.e., there may be less arbitrary dates available. It is clear from the AP2 Proposed Decision that the ArbCom of the time picked 1932 for no there reason than it was somewhere between the extremes of 1980 (too recent) and all of American history (too far back). If anything, this is a good demonstration of how the Goldilocks principle can guide rational people to suboptimal results. Neither the AP nor the AP2 cases involved anything that reached anywhere near as far back as 1932 and Ymblanter and power~enwiki have already demonstrated that the topics that AP2 sanctions have been invoked for are also recent. Beyond My Ken makes a cogent argument that there is ideological continuity of issues from the Roosevelt presidency era to issues of great controversy today but that is not a reason to keep the 1932 date. If we were to accept the continuity of ideologies argument, then the same issues that FDR faced were faced in recognizable form by his cousin Theodore and that these issues have ideological continuity all the way back to Jacksonian democracy and even to Jeffersonianism and Federalism. The committee implicitly rejected this approach since that would have turned the AP2 discretionary sanctions into American History discretionary sanctions. I think that any argument to keep the 1932 cutoff has to substantiate 1932-present as the narrowest possible range to prevent significant disruption. The record at hand does not present any evidence of this being the case. If anything, it shows that 1932 is far too broad and that this violates the principle that sanctions and restrictions should allow the greatest freedom of editing. WP:5P3 still has some purpose here, after all. The ArbCom of the time picked 1932 not through detailed inquiry of the best cutoff but through what seems like expediency and abundance of caution. The ArbCom of today has the benefit of a record that shows the 1932 date was overbroad and can pick a date that better matches the evidence shown. Looking through the sanctions log for this year and last, it is difficult to find anything even post-2000, never mind after the 1980 date the original ArbCom felt was too recent. Please consider moving the date forward significantly, to at least 1988 (the George H. W. Bush v. Michael Dukakis presidential election). This date would be a better fit for the evidence of disruption that is available and also match BMK's ideological continuity of issues argument while being closer to the idealized least restrictive option and therefore be less arbitrary than 1932. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of AP2 sanctions[edit]

At the implicit invitation of Barkeep49's request for better data and because I'm seeing dates picked based on what looks like speculation of what might or could happen, I thought it necessary to present what has happened under the current regime. Debates, however fierce, in the wider society that are not directly reflected in on-wiki disruption should not be the basis for sanctions. Therefore, the record of sanctions was searched for on-wiki disruption and correlated to the time period that the disruption was directly linked to.

Extended Content

Methodology[edit]

The Arbitration enforcement log was examined for blocks, bans, and other editor sanctions placed by administrators from 2016 to 2020 under the authority of the discretionary sanctions authorized by the Arbitration Committee as a result of the American Politics 2 arbitration case. Only restrictions placed on editors were counted, not those on articles. Each sanction as a separate action is counted separately. If an editor was given an edit restriction or topic ban, then violated that and was blocked, then returned and violated it again and was banned, those three separate events are are counted three times. If an editor was blocked or topic banned for violating AP2 restrictions based on multiple edits reported to WP:AE (including, in one notable case, 71 edits) then that one event is counted once.

Community bans are not counted, even if they were related to American politics articles, because those actions are taken under the community's authority and not the committee's. ArbCom bans were included if explicitly invoked under the American Politics 2 case or subsequent motions. Warnings are not counted as sanctions, even if the DS was invoked as a basis for the warning, because warnings do not have the effect of restricting edits through the wiki software. Probations or other irregular and custom sanctions are treated as warnings and so also not counted for the same reason.

Topic bans lifted upon appeal are not counted as sanctions. Topic bans that resulted in a block but which were lifted on appeal were counted as a sanction if the block took place before the ban was lifted. There were a small number of users blocked, unblocked, and reblocked under these sanctions. If the individual blocks were triggered by different edits or there were "new" edits that were significant evidence for further sanctions, then those were considered separate events. Rejected appeals are not counted as separate sanctions.

The time periods are divided by Presidential administration to break the 88 year time period covered by these discretionary sanctions into comprehensible time periods. The time period a sanction was assigned to is based on the edit or edits triggering sanctions. This results the an apparent anomaly that edits related to, e.g., Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign are counted under the "Obama" row and not the "Trump" row. This is inevitable given that each election cycle lasts at least 2 years and there are multiple contestants. Unless clearly otherwise indicated, edits concerning events that took place during the short January lame duck period were counted as sanctions under the following administration for clarity and because politics during this time period are almost entirely concerned with the incoming presidency and not the outgoing one. FDR's presidency was divided into pre-war and war years due to its length and the amendment request above.

Edits triggering sanctions that were to articles not about events (e.g., biographical articles, places, etc.) were treated as follows: If there was a source associated with the edit (either adding or removing) then the date of that source was used to categorize the edit. If the edit was not linked to a source or the source did not have a date then any identifiable event that the edit might have been connected to (e.g., the arrest of a person) was used to categorize the edit. If there was no dated source or identifiable event, then the date of the edit was used to categorize the edit on the basis that edits on political topics are more likely to be triggered by contemporary media coverage than historical coverage.

The data was compiled in a Google Sheets document available here.

Results[edit]

The editing restrictions, blocks, and bans placed under AP2 restrictions since 2016 greatly favor the 2016-present time period and there is almost no record of AP2 sanctions for events prior to 1993.

AP2 sanctions by year and presidency
Presidential Administration	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	Total
FDR pre-war	0	0	0	0	0	0
FDR war years	0	0	0	0	0	0
Truman	0	0	0	0	0	0
Eisenhower	0	0	1	0	0	1
Kennedy	0	0	0	0	0	0
Johnson	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nixon	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ford	0	0	0	0	0	0
Carter	0	0	0	0	0	0
Reagan	0	0	0	0	0	0
Bush Sr.	0	0	0	0	0	0
Clinton	0	2	0	1	2	5
Bush Jr.	0	0	0	0	2	2
Obama	42	13	4	0	4	63
Trump	0	40	46	43	48	177
Total	42	55	51	44	56	248

Discussion[edit]

Of the total 248 discretionary sanctions placed in the 4 years since they were authorized under the current ArbCom remedies , 240 or 96.7% were for edits concerning events after 2016. The almost complete lack of sanctions for events in the time period from 1932 to 1988 shows that the current remedies are not currently narrowly-tailored to the actual disruption experienced on this site. Speculation that sanctions need to encompass the period before 1988 are not supported by the evidence of disruption reported. Although the methodology is believed sound, discrepancies would not change that the evidence is very clear. Even if there were massive errors in time period categorization, the evidence of disruption is clustered is so tightly to time periods after 2009 that there can be no rational argument that sanctions have been invoked to curtail actual disruption for fully 86% of the time period currently covered by the DS regime. Although page protections and similar page-level invocations of the authority granted under AP2 was not explicitly tallied, cursory investigation did not disclose results which differed significantly from the results of the editor-level sanctions and so has not been worth the time to compile. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to the Arbs'/clerks[edit]

I have to admit some confusion regarding the motions below. From my reading, it appears that two almost-exclusive motions have possibly passed, which probably means I'm interpreting the preferential votes incorrectly. Perhaps a simple form of ranked preference voting could be added? e.g., 4,3,1,2 (meaning first preference is for the 4th motion below, etc...) (This example isn't my preference or a suggestion, I just rolled a D4. Yes, I'm that geeky). I think if I'm confused, I might not be the only one. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero[edit]

I was one of the drafting arbs for this case and can answer what was going through our heads at the time. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish[edit]

In short, I concur with Nosebagbear on burden, and with so many others here in having concerns about how sweeping these DS have been. In detail, I think this should be narrowed to 1960 onward (so it starts with JFK's presidential election campaign – there's always going to be fringe conspiracy-theory nonsense about JFK), or to an even later date, maybe starting with 1988 (George H. W. Bush's campaign), but start no later than 1992 (Bill Clinton; the Clintons are still the subject of a lot of fringe conspiracy-theory nonsense themselves). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader[edit]

I wouldn't comment, but some of the arb comments below seem like speculation to me. Rather than guess what years are troublesome, why not look at WP:AELOG? There's years of knowledge of how DS is actually used (minus the intimidation of templates) in that log - practically everything one needs not just for larger DS reform, but also to make evidence-based determinations in small requests like this.

At a skim, I see no page restrictions based inherently on 20th century politics. Too lazy to check the editor sanctions but I'm guessing same applies there. 1980s or even up to the Clinton era makes sense to me. It can always be changed back if this turns out to have been too restrictive. Guerillero was there a particular reason for 1932? The PD doesn't give much insight. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a content decision, and if it were then the whole thing seems to fall outside AC’s remit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

I am not seeing any problem with 1932. If there is no disruption between 1932 and, say, 1960, then there will be no enforcement. So why take an arrow out of Admins' quiver for 1932-1960 in case it's ever needed? Bigger picture I am not convinced the current setup is worth the trouble in American Politics. Arbcom principles are basically WP policy that Admins can enforce regardless of DS. The page restrictions in AP add little or nothing. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katie, on 1933ff articles with no problem, I don't see that there are page restrictions or extra notices. For example, [151] SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000[edit]

To get to this noticeboard and create this much discussion; seems to me that a serious problem with the current arbitrary date being any more problematic than a new arbitrary date need be detailed. And, with all due respect to DGG, I won’t believe that Jan. 20 will mark a milestone in ending the current political millstones until that occurs. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (AP2)[edit]

I'd support 1992 per Egg's data. "Anybody can edit"/"not a bureaucracy" should be the default position. Any restrictions on that should be only as broad as necessary. The data shows that before 1992 is not necessary, as there has only been one case prior to 1992, out of 248 total. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better for the committee to decide this here and now by motion than to take up the editor time required for an RFC. If the range of options are 1960, 1980, or 1992, I submit that it won't make a big difference which date the committee picks. If the community disagrees with the committee's decision, someone can start an RFC to overturn it. But if the committee picks a new date and everyone is fine with it, it'll save a bunch of editors a bunch of time. Setting the scope of DS is a core function that editors elect arbs to perform, so I don't think it's a stretch to say the community would trust Arbcom to change the AP2 start date without requiring an RFC. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calidum[edit]

I think pushing it back to 1960 makes the most sense. Keeping it at 1960 rather than 1980 ensures that Vietnam and Watergate would remain under the scope, among other topics. 1980 would be the furthest I would go, because anything later would omit the Reagan years, which have always been a point of controversy. -- Calidum 15:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

We should be cautious about changing the date too much. It's important to consider that, just because recent editing history may show a narrower, more recent, focus to disputes, that doesn't mean that users won't find reasons to dispute about earlier history as events unfold in the near future. There is, in particular, the likelihood of disputes over whether or not Trump represents a short-term phenomenon, or whether he is the culmination of decades of political trends. Does it go back to Nixon's southern strategy? To the Red Scare? To Jim Crow? En-Wiki faces a particular challenge in that there is a significant political movement based upon deliberate falsification of reality. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing that Arbs are voting on the motions using language along the lines of using one year is OK in terms of particular political events or figures, but another year is not. Those are absolutely judgments about content, and not about the reported conduct of users, and is the wrong way to go about it. If that's the way the Committee is leaning, then you need to leave it to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today in The New York Times, Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman has an opinion column in which he gives his views about what led up to the trouble in the US recently: [152]. He says in part:

"This coddling of the crazies was, at first, almost entirely cynical. When the G.O.P. began moving right in the 1970s its true agenda was mainly economic — what its leaders wanted, above all, were business deregulation and tax cuts for the rich. But the party needed more than plutocracy to win elections, so it began courting working-class whites with what amounted to thinly disguised racist appeals."

That's the 1970s. I can confidently predict that:

There will be more sources saying stuff like that in the year ahead.
Some en-Wiki editors will be strongly in favor of citing such material to say that present-day US politics grows out of the 1970s.
Some en-Wiki editors will be strongly opposed to doing so (and just as Krugman's language is intense, so will be some of the disputes here).

I urge the Arbs to be careful not to push the date too far forward. Right now might be a particularly inopportune time to make big changes in procedures about content concerning current US politics, because things in the real world are so very, very unsettled. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

While I definitely think the date could be changed, I'd be cautious about relying exclusively on data about existing disruption or sanctions; one thing to worry about is that if the cut-off is too recent, users topic-banned or restricted in the AP2 area might just shift to disrupting articles somewhat earlier in the timeline. Also, having the restrictions be "intuitive" is absolutely valuable to both editors and administrators - they should be able to guess at a glance whether something falls under it. Based on this I strenuously oppose 1988, which is utterly arbitrary and has no special meaning or relevance to the topic area - if we're going to change the scope, 1980 is a much more significant date and will be far more intuitive. The restriction shouldn't be drastically broader than necessary, sure; but it should also be logical and shouldn't leave things outside its scope that are plainly connected in a single topic area. --Aquillion (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee[edit]

From Eggishorn's analysis, 1992 is the issue and almost nothing before that is causing a problem. I almost think it could be 2000 with only a very few concerns before that. And, wow. That is an amazing look at American politics. Someone needs to write a scholarly paper using that analysis. —valereee (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Would something like AP-25 work? American politics of the past 25 years? That way it maybe wouldn't need to be adjusted in future? —valereee (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme[edit]

ArbCom, grab the bull by the horns, and eliminate DS/AE altogether. It doesn't work - it opens the door to WP:POV creep, and there's really nothing that happens in a controversial topic area that an admin cannot handle normally to stop disruption. All DS/AE does is make it more difficult to reverse a bad judgment call - not saying all are bad judgment calls but I do believe POV creep is an issue. Let the admins do their job normally - if one of them misjudges, another admin will let them know and a compromise can be worked out less any wheel warring. Unilateral actions based on an admins sole discretion has created animosity, confusion, has cost us good editors, solves nothing, and wastes our time as we're seeing here now. That's my inflated nickel's worth, and yes, I'm biased because of what has happened to me. Atsme 💬 📧 19:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG[edit]

I find myself agreeing with Beeblebrox and others --having an RfC on this will just extend the discussion and provide a field for polemics, without adding anything to what the committee can do by itself. I was on the committee when we proposed the 1932 date, and we were trying to avoid saying everything related to AP whenever, by at least providing some limit. I think it was an unrealistic one. The roots may go back to 1932, but the on-wiki controversies begin with Obama. As Eggishorn's data does not go back before Obama's 2nd term, the logical cutoff is the beginning of the election campaign of his first term, which is 2008. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BD2412[edit]

1992 seems to be an entirely appropriate cutoff to me. It's not as if we can't go back and adjust it (or apply existing administrative tools) if a bunch of issues suddenly bubble up around Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. BD2412 T 21:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

I'm content with whatever cutoff year yas choose. Just be sure to let me know, what that new cutoff year is. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000[edit]

I think that what makes a few topics particularly and intractably contentious is when there when there is a current real-world contest on where persons from one side feel that their side can gain or lose based on what's in the related Wikipedia article. Also where enough English Wikipedia editors are motivated to that level. The next consideration is that measures such as this should only be as broad as needed. Besides a chilling effect, like with other Wikipedia mechanisms, tools designed to avoid warfare often becomes tools OF warfare. Regarding American politics, the core of the battle is elections and current specific hotly debated items and culture wars. By that criteria, I think that moving it up to 1980 would still encompass the particularly and intractably contentious areas. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody appears to be opposed to narrowing, perhaps you could say "change to 1980 as step one, and then review for possible further narrowing.". Two stages sounds slower, but it is decisively moving towards a resolution vs. not. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Courcelles[edit]

As someone who worked on and voted on the existing remedy, I can tell you why I argued for this date specifically -- so that the entirety of Social Security would be covered. It was not a date picked out of thin air; while most of the New Deal is not a major issue in the modern climate, at the time (and in the years preceding the decision) proposals on the reform of Social Security were a fairly big deal, and the impending exhaustion of the trust fund in the next couple years might bring it back up again. I haven't been nearly active enough lately to offer anything beyond this historical "What was arbcom thinking?" footnote, though! Courcelles (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

just as a suggestion, perhaps it would be better to discuss this after Jan. 20? DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With the holidays and new year and new Arbs incoming, I don' think we'll have reviewed this much sooner anyway. Technically, January 20th is not that relevant for articles about events 80 years ago but since this is a pretty active and sensitive area, I would recommend scheduling plenty of time for community comments anyway. Regards So Why 10:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any cut-off date of this kind is going to be at least a little bit arbitrary. I'd be interested in knowing whether the current 1932 date is causing any practical issues, e.g., are there people being sanctioned for disputed edits or edits being unnecessarily deterred covering the period from 1932 to, say, 1960? Off the top of my head I'd say the major flare-ups have concerned the politics and politicians of the past 20 years or so, but I'd welcome input from the AE admins and the editors active in the area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interstellarity, what is currently covered in that 1932–1944 time period that you think ought not to be covered by DS? I can see the potential argument for adjusting the time frame of the DS topic area, but I don't know if changing it that minimally is really worth the time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the examples given here of older topics covered under this DS area: Frank Rizzo is covered due to a statue of him being torn down in 2020, Three Red Banners is covered due to a conspiracy theory involving the Biden/Harris logo, and Vince Foster is covered due to ongoing conspiracy theories involving his death. I think it's fair to say that all three of these articles would still be covered regardless of the cut-off date for discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and instead we should be looking at trying to delineate politics from history. Perhaps the line separating the two could be drawn much closer to the present than is being proposed here. – bradv🍁 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought that setting a date from which DS would apply was more of a content decision that ArbCom normally makes. Further, the reasoning offered here by some editors (e.g. Beyond My Ken, SMcCandlish) about why it should be certain dates again reads to me more like a content decision making than behavioral determination. The reason why ArbCom does this is pretty obvious - ArbCom owns DS and DS is normally created in the middle of a case, so of course it needs to make a decision around the parameters. However, in this case ArbCom isn’t under the time pressure of a case. Therefore, I would be inclined to want to see a normal content resolution method, in this case an advisory RfC, to justify voting to change the years of DS or else more behavioral analysis (such as what is offered by Eggishorn) in order to support a change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eek: I think there's a good argument to be made that the onus on us is to limit the scope of extraordinary administrative powers (through DS) to the minimum necessary range and thus a good reason for the 1980 date suggested a couple times above (and also what Guerillero indicated to me was their original proposal). What, beyond what has been presented here by Interstallar and some others, would be a reason for you to re-evaluate the date? My answer is above but I'm curious what yours is because I am not clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to publicly acknoweldge what Eggishorn has done here. The data he has collected is impressive on its own merits and very useful for me in my decision making process. Thank you to him. I remain open to an advisory RfC, as seems to have been supported by Worm, but I'm also open to just deciding it here if there is consensus among editors (and to be clear I'd want more comments made to be clear that's the case) and arbs generated by the data we now have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with 1992 given the data in front of us. I'll note that I went through the article restrictions and found a couple that would be outside the time we're talking about (Internment and Frank Rizzo) from the last 3 years but this on the whole does continue to support that disruption is from the last 30 years. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: L235 sent out a nice reminder to the Arbs and Clerks about how this works. But essentially a second choice support is the same as an oppose until the first choice fails. So using me as an example, I oppose 1980 and have varying preferences for the other 3. Right now my first choice is 1988. That means I'm technically opposing 1992 and the RfC. If 1988 gets a majority opposing 1988 (as would happen if 1 more arb opposes) then I'm supporting 1992. I would try to do vote counting but NYBs and L235s equal first choices makes my head spin so I'm going to leave it to the professionals (clerks) to do, but I think things will fall into place soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts: I can see myself supporting a much more recent cutoff than 1932 – plausibly I could end up supporting something in the neighborhood of the 1980s. I don't know if it's really worth it to move it up to something like 1944; is there much actual benefit? I could also support an advisory RfC like Barkeep49 proposes, but I'm not sure I agree it's a "content decision". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally support a date such as 1945 (the end of WWII and the beginning of the current world order) or 1955 (the start of the Vietnam war). If the community would like it, absolutely, and an advisory RfC as Barkeep suggests would be a great idea. But I wonder if it is even necessary to revisit the date at this time. It was arbitrary to begin with, and anything we would come up with would also be somewhat arbitrary. I am not seeing a compelling reason that the 1932 cutoff is causing problems, and changing it will result in a lot of bureaucratic overhead. If the adjustment would be minor and have limited effects, I think our energy best be saved for a broader look at DS later this year. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BK: I can buy that the onus is on us to limit extraordinary powers, like DS, and am open to seeing the date move up. But I disagree with 1980 (Reagan's election), I think that remains too recent, and excludes much that remains a sorespot in the American political memory. I see that power~enwiki and SMcCandlish both mention 1960 (JFK's election), which I would accept more readily than 1980. I think the date should certainly not be sooner than 1980, as the Reagan years remain fiercely debated and form the foundation of the current political divide. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly congratulate Eggishorn's analysis, thank you for the solid data, that has changed my mind. It seems apparent that we could choose 1992 or later and still be fine. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Eggishorn, for that data – most helpful. I understand the original 1932 date, FDR and New Deal and so on. It's certainly not causing any difficulty to anyone, since there are no sanctions being issued, but if we don't need it, we don't need it, and I don't like having unnecessary sanctions and their notice boxes and advisory requirements and so forth. I'd be willing to amend to 1980, but in no event should it be any sooner than 1992. Katie^talk 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board with moving to a more modern date, limiting the DS area. That said, I'm not keen on the committee chosing the date, as it does seem to be a content issue. Therefore, I particularly like Barkeeps' suggestion of an advisory RfC, to get community thoughts (also thank you to the community members who have commented so far). Worm^TT(talk) 10:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to changing the date and I agree that "when did modern politics start?" is a content question, so an advisory RFC seems like a good idea but in the end, this Committee has to decide which date to set (but hopefully wiser after community input). Regards So Why 07:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll echo SoWhy in endorsing an advisory RfC to help us make the final decision. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eggishorn makes a solid case for why we should move the date closer (and a potential starting point). The question of when is somewhat up for debate. On the one hand, I feel like any date we pick will be criticized (though I've seen some fairly compelling reasons for certain dates above). On the other hand, asking the community to decide would likely result in a hundred people all splitting their opinions between every year between 1932 and 2016 (i.e. at the moment I would not be in favour of some sort of advisory RfC).

TLDR: I'm willing to be convinced either direction, but at the moment I'm a "yes" for changing the date and a "no" for a community RfC on it. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to comment here for days but got somewhat distracted by American Politics in real time. I do think we have a responsibility to keep sanctions as limited as is reasonable, and 1932-now is probably too wide a net for the scope of the issues. The idea of asking the community to decide for us does not sit well with me as I expect we would simply be extending the process and would still need to ultimately make the decision ourselves. The data is indeed compelling and interesting, but my gut says we'd be making a mistake by leaving the Reagan years out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to provide clarity to editors who are watching, the 1992 cut-off now has a majority and is currently set to pass. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: American politics 2 (1988 cutoff)[edit]

Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1988 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1988 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

First choice given the data we've accumulated and Levivich's point about the value of editor time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a critical change, because no one is being sanctioned, or deterred from editing for fear of being sanctioned, in the earlier years anyway. Per SoWhy below, I'd be fine with tweaking the date to 1980 or 1992 also. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
second choice (on equal ground with 1980) given my thoughts on 1992 below. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC) As proposer (with thanks to L235 for drafting the language). Primefac (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, moved to oppose. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I'm not sure whether any of the dates mentioned are "correct" but if this aims to encompass "modern" politics, it should either include Reagan (1980) or clearly not (1992). I would count George H. W. Bush's presidency as an extension of Reagan's, considering he kept key policies and personnel in place, so 1988 seems a weird "cut" in this era to make. I still think a RFC would be helpful and I don't agree that not doing so will "save a bunch of editors a bunch of time". No one is forced to participate in such a RFC and if editors want to spend their time on such a discussion, it'll be their own choice. Regards So Why 19:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 20:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC) The data suggests that arbitration enforcement actions get applied overwhelmingly for topics starting at 1992 and later.[reply]
We either include the Reagan years, or exclude the Reagan years, we shouldn't cut them in half (since HW Bush is basically Reagan II: Electric Boogaloo) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to choose 1988 vs. 1992. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three proposed cutoff dates, I feel this one makes the least sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I read through this thread it becomes more clear that '88, among the three date options, is the least plausible for a cutoff date. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per Primefac (and others) really Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Prefer 1992, don't oppose 1988. Worm^TT(talk) 08:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think I'd be on board if this were 1980. I'll keep considering. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also personally fine with a 1980 cutoff. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're going to make the decision ourselves I think we need to do it based on data regarding existing disruption. 1988 already provides a buffer against the data suggesting problems begin with Clinton (1992). So I could not support 1980 if we're doing this here. I could support it as a more traditional content decision but for that I'd want the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: American politics 2 (RfC)[edit]

In Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)"), the Arbitration Committee authorized standard discretionary sanctions for "all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". The Committee is now considering amending the 1932 cutoff date, and invites the community to hold an advisory RfC regarding what change, if any, should be made to it.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

~~Second choice~~ as I think my original idea that there are elements to content decisions so we should use content decision mechanisms still remains. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. RegardsSo Why 19:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still think would be a good idea to have a discussion but I also think, we can decide this now, so for purposes of counting, count this as oppose if any cutoff passes. Regards So Why 21:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is fundamentally a content question, I expect this will remain my first choice. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, I do not believe this is a question for the committee, as it will have site wide content reprecussions. Overkill, perhaps, slow, perhaps - but neither of those concern me as much as getting the right answer. However, in deference to my colleagues below - I will be supporting 1992 and abstaining from other choices, which are all fine. I choose 1992 so as to minimise the area covered by DS - which I believe is an important thing to do. I would also accept 1998 based on the Eggishorn investigation, but I think I'm the only one on that. Worm^TT(talk) 08:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I understand the concept, but a full-fledged, monthlong community RfC on this particular issue strikes me as overkill. If we feel we could use more input, a more direct approach would be to suspend the voting for a week, and announce on relevant noticeboards that we are considering this issue and would welcome community comments here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC) While I would appreciate being shown wrong, as far as I'm aware, the "arbcom encouraging an RfC" path has rarely if at all been successful. There was such a recommendation following the portals (2020) or civility in infobox discussions (2018) cases but it didn't go anywhere. Even the committee-led anti-harassment RfC took forever to get going, even after the new arbs were seated after the 2019 election.[reply]
per the cogent analysis of my peers. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was originally in support of this idea, but I don't think this is an important enough issue to dedicate a copious amount of community time to. This has already extended longer than it really ought have, and the outcome will still likely be one of the dates we have identified. Also, we have had a fair amount of community involvement already, which has given us the solid info we need to make an informed decision (thanks again to Eggishorn). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment below, I still feel this is our problem to solve, and kicking the can down the road won't change that, and is likely to be a waste of time. We've gotten plenty of input from the community right here on this page, I don't see how doing the same thing on another page for an entire month is needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huge timesink Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This is an interesting idea, and I appreciate the thought behind it, but I have some concerns. One is that this is our responsibility. Whether we agree or not that the previous committee should have set a hard cutoff date, they did and therefore any change is ultimately our problem. More generally, I'm concerned that an RFC is just kicking the can down the road. If we don't get a very clear result we will just be back here in a month having the exact same discussion. I'm not at the point right now while I am outright opposing this idea but neither am I at the point where I would support it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Same here, per my comment in the main section above. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Motion: American politics 2 (1980 cutoff)[edit]

Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1980 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1980 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Proposed, as this date has been mentioned by BDD as a potential option. Equal first choice to the 1988 cutoff (clerks: count this as a vote for the motion that receives the most support from other arbs). I still disagree with the notion that this is a "content issue" – in my view, content issues are ones where the Committee decides directly or indirectly the contents of articles; this is manifestly not that. Even if the Committee decided "the cutoff should be the beginning of modern American politics, which begins 1980", that still wouldn't be a content decision, because it would not be binding on what can be included in the content of articles. And in my view, we've spent far more time on this than this issue justifies already. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think 1980 preferable to the 1988 cutoff. If we're going only by Eggishorn's well compiled data, then we should use 1992. But the disruption potential of the Reagan years seems apparent, and I think we would do ourselves a disservice by choosing a date later than 1980. See also my above comments. I agree with Kevin that this is not a content decision, and that we have already spent too much time on it. We aren't saying what can and can't be on pages, or defining for the world what modern American politics is, we are simply creating a usable internal definition that allows for special enforcement action. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Second choice.~~ I still think we should have a wider discussion (RFC or otherwise) but if not, I agree with CaptainEek above. Considering the influence Reagan had on the modern GOP and by extension American politics in general, this era should be covered. Regards So Why 13:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a RFC will happen, so I'll upgrade this to first choice in order to hopefully make it easier to calculate supports. Regards So Why 21:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice after the RFC—i.e., if we're deciding now, I say 1980. CaptainEek has put it best. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice (even with 1988). I can see the argument for including the Reagan years, but the evidence suggests that these are not "disputed" years of activity. That being said, there are many involved in American Politics who would classify Reagan as being the "beginning of modern politics", and since that's the primary focus of this DS region it would make sense to include his presidency in it. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, equal preference to the other dates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a perfect solution? Almost certainly not. Is it better than what we have now? Yes. While I appreciate that this is a rare instance where we appear to have empirical data that suggests a specific date that is different from this one, I really feel like the Reagan years were the genesis of the current framework of American national politics and we'd fnd ourselves back here again in the future if we exclude them from the scope now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Opposed per my comments ~~above.~~below Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Edited Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per oppose on 1988 cutoff Maxim_(talk) 20:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too broad Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft oppose, to help with voting. Since the RfC is not happening, I would like to keep the sanction as narrow as possible. Worm^TT(talk) 12:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: ~~Prefer 1992, don't oppose 1980 Worm^TT(talk) 08:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Discussion

Just to put my concerns with this date in this section rather than making people search them out elsewhere, I think we, as a committee, have an obligation to apply DS as narrowly as possible in order to prevent disruption. Given what appears, over a 3 year time period which included an election, a lack of disruption that led to either article restrictions (my look revealed 2 that were pre-1988) or editor sanctions (see work above from Eggishorn) I think saying "1980 because that marked an epoch change in American History" is an intellectually cogent position but not one which fulfills our obligation to be conservative with the grant of extraordinary powers to administrators. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff)[edit]

Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1992 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Second choice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed, as this date has been mentioned by Barkeep49 and others as a potential option. Equal first choice to the 1988 cutoff (clerks: count this as a vote for the motion that receives the most support from other arbs), per my vote above. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments on 1988 cutoff. Maxim_(talk) 20:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on RfC motion - this would be my choice if my colleagues do not agree on holding an RfC. I don't oppose any of the dates - but I do feel the committee should be minimising the area covered by DS. I appreciate CaptainEek's point about capturing potentional disruption - but there's potential disruption everywhere, and our concern should be actual disruption. These sanctions are not being used to combat anything between 1980 and 1992, so we should just cover the minimum. Worm^TT(talk) 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having re-read through the evidence, while the other dates have reasonable arguments, the evidence indicates that there has been no disruption before the Clinton years. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, equal preference to the other dates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support only as a distant second choice to 1980. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support strongly - based on (a) zero sanctions older than 1993 (b) start of controversial Clinton years, (c) significant numbers of still-living people active from this point on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Much of current American politics, at least on the conservative side, can be tracked back to Reagan and Bush, including a number of key personnel, like Bill Barr, who served both back then and recently. I also think it's reasonable to have a cut off date that encompasses most still living politicians' whole careers. There are only two current members of Congress whose tenure started before 1980 (Patrick Leahy and Don Young) but thirteen that started before 1992, including Mitch McConnell. Regards So Why 19:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

I do not feel strongly about 1992. I think it would be a workable date, though I prefer 1980 so that we capture the Reagan years. But 1992 would not be the end of the world. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per CaptainEek. I don't really see the case for 1988, but otherwise, all of the proposed motions are reasonable to me. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Amendment request: American politics 2 (January 2021)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Interstellarity at 13:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: [153]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Interstellarity[edit]

I have a question regarding the recent decision made by ArbCom. There are editors that are topic banned from post-1932 American politics. I would like the arbitrators' opinion on whether we should convert those topic bans into post-1992 AP due to the recent decision ArbCom made. Interstellarity (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone please close this request? Given that the arbitrators agree on the same thing, I don’t think this should be open any longer. Interstellarity (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Gut instinct, no - any editors who feel they would like to edit in the newly available 60 year period can appeal for a modification. That said, I'm willing to hear other thoughts Worm^TT(talk) 13:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we weren't changing existing sanctions was important to me. I agree if someone wants to appeal to change the date range AE should consider that request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not automatically – that was explicitly part of the previous motion. But if the normal appeals process decides to modify any particular sanction, that's OK, of course. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. We may have bans that were put in place to deal with pre 1992 problems, those should not be automatically converted. That being said, I think AE should be fairly lenient in granting amendments of that nature. This issue has already eaten up a bunch of community time, no need for it to take more. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with my colleagues here. If an editor feels their sanction should be converted, they can ask for it and it can be reviewed whether it makes sense. The change was explicitly made "from this point on", not retroactively. Regards So Why 07:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: American politics 2 (March 2021)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Guy Macon at 17:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Guy Macon[edit]

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) (January 2021), if a user has received a DS-alert for post-1932 politics of the United States does that imply that they have been alerted regarding post-1992 politics of the United States?

Statement by Nosebagbear[edit]

This seems so inherently assumed to me, that it would actually be better for the arbs to note in their motion close that any DS regime that is modified to a subset will automatically carry over its awareness and so on. At worst, the editors are being careful about a slightly larger area than they need be. Obviously they wouldn't (fully) apply had the DS been extended (say, to American and Canadian politics), should an incident occur on the Canadian side, until they had been further made aware. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

I would say yes. Primefac (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say yes. But again see my comments (and Kevin's and NYB's) above that AWARENESS is broken and is going to be a major focus sometime this year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logically, yes, since post-1932 encompasses post-1992. Regards So Why 18:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I think we can close this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: American politics 2 (January 2022)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Atsme at 01:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

You are indefinitely topic banned from Anti fascism in the United States, broadly construed.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Diff of notification for Awilley.

Information about amendment request

Topic ban from Antifascism US imposed at Talk:Atsme, first on July 22, 2019, amended on July 24, 2019 at Talk:Atsme.
- Repeal requested

Statement by Atsme[edit]

The date of Awilley's first topic ban action is July 22 2019 but he modified it July 24, 2019 to cover US only, perhaps because I called an RfC at the only article that is clearly subject of this t-ban, and where I also received an apology for the behavior that resulted in my stated concerns over how I was being treated. As Awilley has said in the past to other editors who reacted defensively to aggressive editors, we need to grow thicker skin. A few of the diffs he included involved my attempt to fix the header template at Talk:Fascism because it conflicts with consensus from an RFC, and contradicts the resulting lead of the article, but that topic is not part of my t-ban. He also used diffs for my limited participation in an AfD involving a BLP which may or may not be associated with the topic of my t-ban. I have had very limited participation in that topic area as evidenced in this discussion. Please forgive me, but "backroom deals" don't sit well with me, so I chose to bring my appeal here. It is now January 1, 2022 and the topic ban has been in place approximately 2-1/2 years for a topic area where I have spent very little time over the past decade as an editor. In fact, an iota of time would be an gargantuan overstatement in comparison to my total edits. I would very much like to start the New Year with a clean slate, and hope ArbCom will agree that it has been long enough.

Response to starship.paint - this diff was my response to the apology I received, and I'm hoping that my response to that apology will also serve as a demonstrative answer to your question about recommitting. I have always taken and will continue to take my commitments seriously. Atsme 💬 📧 01:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, I didn't intend to make time-served the primary reason for my appeal. If you are concerned about my behavior in that particular topic area after examining the diffs - can you please be more specific and ~~at least~~ provide a diff or two so I can at least see & understand what has raised your concerns to the point that you're hesitant to remove a t-ban that has been in place for 2-1/2 years? Without specifics, I'm at a loss. I was under the impression that blocks and t-bans are to be used to stop disruption, not punish editors. So please forgive me for not quite understanding what purpose you see this t-ban is serving to stop disruption at this point in time. Atsme 💬 📧 02:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opabinia regalis, I do appreciate your question and multiple choice options, which brought to mind your response to me a short time ago. I'm not one to "blow smoke", so I'll just say, somewhat apologetically, that I have no clue as to how much time I will devote to WP in the coming years. Over the past decade, my volunteer participation in any controversial topic area has been negligible in the grand scheme of things, but sadly, those little black marks I've inadvertently managed to accumulate over the years are indelible, quite depressing and major incentive killers that resulted in my spending less time editing in general. This essay on my UTP serves as a reminder of how much time I want to devote, considering how much our work is appreciated. I will also add that the extent of my activity as a WP volunteer in general is contingent upon ArbCom's actions to implement much needed changes in DS/AE in an effort to remedy the problems that work against collaborative editing, and inadvertently encourage WP:POV creep which tips the scales in favor of whatever systemic bias is prevalent at the time, gives first mover advantage, and discourages NPOV and the consensus building process. Perhaps this AfD will serve a useful purpose as a case study for ArbCom when deliberating over the efficacy of DS/AE. There is always room to improve AE actions, especially when determining whether or not an editor is actually being disruptive or admin prejudice is involved vs productively contributing to the consensus building process. To me, this response demonstrates good judgement in a highly controversial and lengthy discussion. I cast my iVote in that AfD, and was neither repeatedly questioned nor bullied which is what typically happens in controversial topic areas. Atsme 💬 📧 23:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, thank you for bringing that to my attention. I was referring to the template as it existed in July 2019. The template is a muted fuchsia pink with rather large bold letters, and at the time simply stated: "Fascism is a right wing ideology. The consensus of political scientists, historians, and other reliable sources is that Fascism is a right-wing ideology and not a left wing one. This has been discussed numerous times; please see the archives. Please do not request that "right-wing" be changed to "left-wing"; your request will be denied." The current template's bold title catches one's eye and contradicts what both the first sentence and article lead state. That TP will never be stable because of that template, but I've long since learned WP:IDGAF. At least the first sentence has been ~~corrected~~ modified somewhat - perhaps a compromise was reached. Regardless, I have long since adopted the following philosophy: WP:IDGAF. Atsme 💬 📧 03:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC) ^{see underlined text 07:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)}[reply]
Black Kite - I will gladly respond to any specific concerns you may have about my behavior if you would be so kind as to point out the violations you believe I'm guilty of committing, and provide supporting diffs. So far, none of the diffs provided against me support the claims of backsliding, whatever "backsliding" means. It is clearly a broad and subjective term which requires specifics for clarity. I beg of you to please, please not use that generality to base your decision because there is no policy or guideline that defines backsliding as an actionable offense. It doesn't even represent a good summary close of my original appeal, which was granted and after all these years should have no bearing on the current t-ban that Awilley himself described as an extremely small and relatively ugly part of the encyclopedia. Bishonen used stale diffs that don't support her claims. One diff points to a comment I made on my UTP to the "regular user" who wrongfully accused me of a BLP vio, obviously in retaliation for this incident. Black Kite, you also participated in that ANI case; Ivanvector closed it with an excellent summary. With all claims considered, how does this diff not demonstrate favoritism for the "regular user" and prejudice against me? This isn't the first time, either. As for the Fox News RfC allegation - the multiple admins who closed that RfC stated: There was a very large amount of what we considered to be bludgeoning from certain participants of this RFC. While there is no formal limit to the maximum number of times one may comment on a given discussion, replying with the same argument(s) to multiple participants holding an opposite viewpoint becomes extremely tedious (bordering on tendentious). None of the participants were charged with a violation. I even contacted Rosguill via private email because I was very concerned, and I absolutely do care so please don't believe the misrepresentations about me. If prejudiced admins had been involved in that Fox RfC, they probably would have seen it as tendentious editing, and the heads of editors with whom they disagreed would have rolled. I was advised that the reference included all editors who made over 10 comments in the discussion, which did include me among several others, which again brings to mind this AfD, and further begs the question about the merits of Bishonen's warning on my UTP in 2020, and her use of those old diffs to poison the well against me now. It makes me very sad. Atsme 💬 📧 07:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the utmost respect for this forum, the scope of my appeal, and the arbitrators who are taking/have taken the time to consider it, I will not respond to the unfounded allegations and prejudiced opinions that reach beyond the scope of this appeal. Atsme 💬 📧 15:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Izno - "total disengagement" was not intentional - it was RL getting in the way, but I appreciate your enthusiasm. Ironically, I get t-banned for claims that I post too much, and reprimanded for not posting enough. Please allow me a bit more time to present my final thoughts. When I'm pressed for time, my posts are too long. Atsme 💬 📧 00:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts

To satisfy Awilley's requirement, in the future I will try to avoid accusing people of gaslighting. Having said that, I hope we will see the removal of WP:GASLIGHTING from our PAGs in order to avoid future misunderstandings per #4. Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord. Examples: denying that you posted what you did, suggesting someone agreed to something they did not, pretending your question has not already been answered, misrepresenting what a policy actually says or means, prevaricating about the obvious meaning of a claim, or refusing to concede when your position has been disproved or rejected by consensus. As far as controversial topics go, I will take BDD's advice to heart and make IDGAF my friend. Atsme 💬 📧 18:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley[edit]

Sorry, traveling. I've always been willing to lift this ban on the condition that Atsme makes some kind of commitment to remedy the problem that led to this (and the previous) ban. I haven't seen that yet. The last appeal (June 2021) was kind of the opposite. Summarizing: "Commit to what? There is no problem. Others were the problem. You're the problem.") I'd be happy to see this ban lifted if Atsme simply said she'd try harder to follow the 2019 promise referenced below by StarshipPaint. ~Awilley (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: for anyone unfamiliar with the history, this started with my closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive247#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Atsme this appeal, which rescinded Atsme's topic ban for the whole of American Politics. Based on comments in the admin section, my close included a warning that "backsliding into behaviors that led to the ban will result in further sanctions". Less than 4 months later I saw these edits [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] accusing 4 different editors of, among other things, "gaslighting" and POV pushing. That seemed a clear case of backsliding, but instead of restoring the full AP2 topic ban, I imposed a very narrow ban for Anti-Fascism (ANTIFA).

I'll avoid any further defense of the legitimacy of the ban. I think that was settled in previous appeals. Nov 2019 Nov 2020

@North8000: I'm not insisting on a full re-commitment to the 2019 promises specifically. I just want to see some kind of commitment to do better. I'd settle for something as simple as "In the future I'll try to avoid accusing people of gaslighting." This is how I approach all appeals. ~Awilley (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll settle for that. Let's get rid of the topic ban. ~Awilley (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint[edit]

@Atsme: will you recommit to your 2019 position? [160] if I ever find myself participating in the AP2 topic area again I will stay on point, present my case with civility while keeping brevity in mind, will answer questions if asked and will maintain my customary polite demeaner at all times. If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas. I have also read the essays WP:WORLDSEND, WP:DGAF, and WP:LETITGO and have taken them to heart. starship.paint (exalt) 08:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: I'll understand that as a 'yes', ~~so I support lifting the sanctions~~, as Atsme has recommitted her intentions. From this, either all is well, or this is WP:ROPE. Anyway, I just saw that Awilley hasn't edited at all in December, so we might not hear from him here soon. starship.paint (exalt) 07:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support withdrawn (am neutral) for now, it seems that the benefit of the doubt given may have been misplaced given the later whatever "backsliding" means overall statement. So, the history, topic banned for [161] filibustering and dominating discussions without bringing them forward (2018), effectively commits not to bludgeon (2019, see above), but did bludgeon in the 2020 Fox News RfC (this is a clear example from the link to the discussion itself even if diffs are not provided), that's backsliding. Atsme - defensiveness over that RfC, or defensiveness over Bishonen's statements, are not helpful. What would be more helpful to your case - 1) acknowledge that the 2020 Fox News RfC bludgeoning was problematic in the context of your 2018 topic ban and your 2019 commitment, and 2) clearly re-commit (like 2019) to not repeating this behaviour (of 2020). starship.paint (exalt) 14:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CaptainEek[edit]

Speaking as an editor and not an Arb, since I have a fairly strong personal opinion on the matter and am the main author on Anti-fascism. As a practical point, this sanction is no longer needed. Its been over two years. Anti-fascism in the US is no longer the spicy hot-button issue it was a few years back. Atsme notes that she is not usually involved in these sort of topics. Even at the time she made a well worded appeal. I understand there is some hesitance to remove a ban because the editor wants a clean slate. But I think we should be more aware of the impacts of sanctions. We may have high ideals about turning the other cheek and being magnanimous, but our editors are still just people. Having inapplicable or unjust sanctions applying to them years later decreases editor morale and editor retention. Lift Atsme's ban. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen[edit]

I won't oppose or support Atsme's article ban appeal. But since at least one arb (Primefac) has shown interest in the larger question of her 2019 new year's promises to do better in the area of American politics, I'll offer a brief history of the fate of these promises, and also point to her apparent unwillingness to explicitly reaffirm them here. These were some very strong and sincere-sounding promises which led to her indefinite AP2 topic ban being lifted in March 2019 and which are partly quoted by Starship.paint above. Atsme's reply to Starship.paint's question about recommitting to the promises seems quite evasive. It consists only of a diff from July 2019 meant as a "demonstrative answer" (?), and the statement that I have always taken and will continue to take my commitments seriously. The diff does not mention those promises or their content. It seems irrelevant to Starship.paint's question, and I'm quite surprised Starship.paint 'understands it as a yes'. I wonder if Primefac and the other arbs understand it so too.

Atsme has not always taken those commitments seriously. By August 2020, she had comprehensively backslid (in my opinion) from them, and when this was pointed out by a regular user,[162] she showed no interest in reaffirming the commitments or even acknowledging them.[163] Indeed, she aggressively blew off the regular user with "I don't need you dancing atop a 2 year action [this refers to her t-ban from American politics] that was questionable from the get-go. Stop dredging up the past" and impugned their motives. The way she absconded from her promises and resented being reminded of them alarmed me, and I posted a warning in my admin role,[164] reminding her that they were what got her topic ban lifted and giving specifics about current problems that I perceived. A striking recent example then was the way she had bludgeoned the Fox News RFC in the summer of 2020, posting some 75 times in it — quite the contrast to the 2019 undertaking "If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas". I urged her to re-read her old appeal and start living up to her old promises, or I would consider reinstating the AP2 topic ban. She made no reply. Perhaps the arbs want to consider whether they'd like a clearer reply from Atsme to the question above about reaffirming her promises. Bishonen | tålk 14:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I'll just add a link to the mentioned Fox News RfC in 2020, in case people want to see Atsme's input for themselves. Bishonen | tålk 17:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Rather than clarifying whether she stands by the promises that got her un-topic-banned from American politics, Atsme is now saying in her response to Black Kite and me (formally only to Black Kite) that "there is no policy or guideline that defines backsliding as an actionable offense". I have a couple of comments on that: ignoring old promises once they have served their purpose is dishonest, not indeed per any 'policies or guidelines', but per WP:COMMONSENSE. "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." (Bolding in the original explanatory supplement to WP:IAR.) And secondly: in the summary close of Atsme's t-ban appeal, she was specifically warned against backsliding, both on on the WP:AE page[165] and in the AE log.[166] I suppose it's a pity that she didn't then ask 'Whatever does backsliding mean?', as she's doing now. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
The motion is now passing, but I'll just post a remark all the same, though with very little hope of getting a response from any arb. Two editors — Wbm1058 and Nableezy — have pointed out that the second sentence of the motion means nothing, since per the discretionary sanctions for post-1992 American politics, an uninvolved administrator who feels that a user is not able to edit productively may always impose a topic ban, at their own discretion. And MastCell has also objected that the second sentence is meaningless and redundant. No arb has responded; they support the motion without seemingly caring that half of it is meaningless. Or, do they support it because they see an esoteric meaning in the second sentence, which the three experienced users I mentioned cannot divine, and they, the arbs, don't care to explain? Those seem to be the alternatives. Bishonen | tålk 22:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Springee[edit]

I don't think my opinion will matter much but I would support the appeal. This isn't an appeal to lift a general politics tban, but a narrow sub-set tban. Atsme has shown that they aren't a problem in the broader topic space which should be all the evidence we need to say that this ban is no longer needed to protect Wikipedia. Politics, especially in the last year has been particularly divisive yet we don't have clear evidence of any backsliding. I know Bishonen noted the concerns of another editor. It's worth noting the editor was involved in the topic area and several topics with Atsme herself vs an uninvolved editor trying to raise a helpful concern. We are over a year later and two and a half years after the general AP ban was lifted. It seems like it's increasingly difficult to view this tban as needed to protect Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla, is the issue that Atsme has actually violated some rules you can point to or is it because she is often on the other side of debates over content you try to add to articles? A number of editors agreed that you should have been narrow topic banned here [167] due to concerns regarding BLP violations. One editor proposed a complete AP tban [168]. You have accused me of provocation on several occasions because I updated your DS Alerts. It seems you respond the same way when an admin adds it [169]. I updated it because in the past you have violated the NPA rules[170][171]. Your talk page shows an number of editors concerned about bad reverts[172], edit warring [173][174], and other less than ideal editor behaviors [175][176][177][178]. Accusations from editors aren't the same thing as proof and often the devil is in the details. Still, quite a few editors have had issues with the way you have handled edits or editor interactions with them. Why should it be assumed that Atsme's issues were the result of unreasonableness on her part? Springee (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those who are opposing the removal, what harm are we protecting here? The purpose of tbans etc is specifically to protect Wikipedia. What harm is likely to come if this is removed? I think that Bishonen's comments have given editors real concern but should they? I see two basic concerns, the first being replies to Soibangla, the second being replies to the Fox RfC. Above I mentioned the concerns other editors have expressed with the way Soibangla has interacted with others. Atsme's replies to what look like battleground comments directed at Atsme look blunt but restrained. The Fox RfC did have a lot of comments but it was a VERY long RfC [179]. This RfC had 63 citations, ~650 signed edits and was active for a month and a half (7 June to 21 July). I counted 67 signed comments by Atsme in that RfC. Quite a few editors were well into the double digits. Many of Atsme's edits were back and forth discussions rather than an editor individually challenging every editor who opposed Atsme's POV which is typically where we raise the bludgeoning concern. They weren't a bunch of uncivil comments, most seem quite congenial even in disagreement. Yes, 67 is a lot but when looking at the total size and But when we look at the total length and breadth of the discussion this isn't the bludgeoning the raw number makes it appear to be. So after 2.5 years of very contentious politics this is all the evidence we have to refuse to lift a narrow topic band? Again, are we actually protecting Wikipedia? If people really are that concerned I think WTT's probationary period is a good compromise. Springee (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite[edit]

I came here to support this, but now I'd like to see an answer to Bishonen's statement. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Soibangla[edit]

I was highly reluctant to participate in this discussion, but Atsme's assertion that I wrongfully accused me of a BLP vio, obviously in retaliation for this incident is flatly false and is indicative of an unrelenting vendetta that Atsme is attempting to project upon me. I find Atsme incorrigible and if it were up to me Atsme would have been permanently banned from AP2 years ago. I cannot fathom why Atsme has been given so many passes for persistently bad behavior. And I fully anticipate that I will be targeted for retribution for coming right out and saying it. Bring it. soibangla (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller[edit]

I'd like to hear Atsme's response to Awilley's request. Unlike starship.paint, I don't take her response as a yes, and I'd prefer something more clearcut. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark[edit]

I don't follow AP so consider this a kibitzer opinion. A request to remove a ban should be crisp and clear. It should recognize why the ban was imposed and clearly state what the editor will do to ensure that the particular behavior is not repeated. I don't see that here. starship.paint's question, for example, required a pro-forma "yes, yes, yes,..." response but, instead, we get a two year old diff that is a non-answer (especially in the light of later diffs from Bishonen). The Opabinia regalis question also required a straightforward answer (this, this, this, or some combination of the three) but, instead, we get a long meandering response with a pointer to an essay (with a, less than encouraging, reference to "admin cabals") and an AfD, neither of which actually answer the questions. Frankly, the topic ban itself seems so limited that it hardly seems to matter whether it stays or goes but, procedurally, it would be nice to see clear statements from the requester and I'm puzzled as to why Atsme seems to not want to be direct in their responses. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000[edit]

Support. 2 1/2 years is enough. Regarding the possible commitment in question, it is a very long post with at least a half dozen interpret-able conditions and a minefield for anybody to commit to. About the only way to fulfill the multiple possible interpretations of those half dozen commitments would be near-zero participation. A better merge would be saying zero drama in that area (with near-zero participation being the only way to safe way to fulfill all interpretations of that)for 6 months. After that they would just have the same scrutiny that all editors have. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Cool and sounds very reasonable. I was just pointing out the issues of going by that particular post and why one would be hesitant to commit to it. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest clarification. After 12 months and if all goes well, is it all over, or go back to a full ban or require another discussion/decision here? North8000 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell[edit]

Atsme previously appealed this topic ban unsuccessfully at WP:AE in November 2020 (link). I don't see that she's mentioned or linked that appeal. One reviewing admin described it as "large amounts of text disclaiming any responsibility on the grounds that everything is some other users' fault". Little seems to have changed, despite the passage of time.

It's common for appeals to contain red flags, but this appeal consists of nothing but red flags: re-litigation of the original ban, no acknowledgement of its rationale, no convincing insight or commitment to change, no real argument beyond time-served, and a lengthy list of grievances. It's quintessential WP:NOTTHEM and bad-faith wikilawyering. I mean, she's soup-spitting you guys about the term "backsliding". Come on.

As usual, debate here focuses on the rights of the sanctioned user. Those affected by her behavior—their voices are largely silent here, their time and experience accorded basically zero value in your deliberations. You guys can pat yourselves on the back, quote the-quality-of-mercy speech and WP:ROPE, and pretend that there's no cost to lifting these sorts of sanctions, because there is no cost to you, and because your empathy extends only to the sanctioned user. It's like letting a wolf loose in a henhouse and then congratulating yourselves on your kindness to animals.

As others have pointed out, Atsme's AP2 topic ban was lifted in response to vague commitments to do better, commitments which were promptly ignored and exposed as toothless. It was foolish and irresponsible to have lifted that topic ban in the absence of any insight or reason to think the underlying behavior would change. But doing the same thing again—as you seem to be considering here—would be outright administrative malpractice. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with wbm1058 that a "provisional" clause would be meaningless and redundant. If you really think this appeal provides a reasonable assurance that the previous issues won't recur, then grant it. Otherwise don't. Don't punt this to some hypothetical uninvolved admin to re-instate the ban—and especially don't pretend that re-imposing the ban is cost-free. As I emphasized above, you're just shifting the cost.

If you trust someone not to backslide into problematic behavior when they won't even acknowledge the meaning of the word "backsliding", then at least have the courage of your convictions and just make a decision. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wbm1058[edit]

The amendment is requested to You are indefinitely topic banned from Anti fascism in the United States, broadly construed. I fail to see, how under even the broadest of construals, the RfC about the reliability of Fox News has anything to do with Antifa in the US. Template:Warning Fascism left-wing was the issue of concern there. The title of that template shouldn't be of much concern since that's not visible to readers. The text of that template has been stable since Jimbo Wales 14 June 2021 edit (I synced it with the current version of the article). There is no reason to maintain sanctions over that. This sanction seems to be (mostly) about Atsme's use of the term "gaslighting". Some background on that. MrX, who at the time was actively editing the Donald Trump bio, created several related shortcuts on 22 June 2018, and boldly amended the Wikipedia:Gaming the system behavioral guideline by adding "Employing gaslighting tactics by using misdirection, repetition, contradiction, and off-topic rambling to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord. Example: Repeatedly complaining about bias in the press or clickbait to undermine reliable sources, while ignoring requests to stay on topic." with edit summary "Happy to discuss on talk if anyone disagrees with this." This was apparently in preparation for the American politics 2 amendment request he filed on 28 June 2018 (just 6 days later), in which he accused Atsme of Repeatedly discrediting reliable sources; claiming bias and propaganda in reliable sources (WP:GASLIGHTING). AWilley did not approve of this term, as he filed a redirect for discussion stating This seems like a non-neutral and misleading redirect. Gaslighting has a specific meaning and the target page (examples of gaming/wikilawering) doesn't include anything about gaslighting or any other form of psychological abuse. but there was no consensus to delete the term, and today the target says Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord. I'm wondering why we've sanctioned an editor for using a term for which there was no consensus to delete and which still is used on a behavioral guideline page, and if this is sanctionable, was MrX ever sanctioned for accusing Atsme of gaslighting? wbm1058 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow the concept of put a "provisional" clause on the removal, that an uninvolved administrator can return it and if none have after 12 months it is completely removed. Aren't uninvolved administrators always authorized to place discretionary sanctions where allowed – for new instances of sanctionable behavior, even if the sanction is identical to a previously expired or repealed sanction that was imposed for an old instance of sanctionable behavior? – without needing any enabling "clause" – and would removal of the "clause" after 12 months then have the effect of prohibiting the imposition of sanctions for new instances of sanctionable behavior? wbm1058 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The primary meaning of backsliding, according to Wikipedia, is a term used within Christianity to describe a process by which an individual who has converted to Christianity reverts to pre-conversion habits and/or lapses or falls into sin... the backslidden individual is in danger of eventually going to Hell if he does not repent. I don't care for the use of this term with its negative religious connotations in conversations about behavior on Wikipedia. Ideally, I'd like to see both terms "backsliding" and "gaslighting" removed from the vocabulary of behavioral discussions on Wikipedia. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO[edit]

I would recommend Atsme provide a direct and concise response to the arbs and Awilley and then just avoid AP articles and issues altogether. No one can fix those places, especially in this political climate. So it better to find places in the pedia that allow one to have some fun and avoid some folks with serious mental and emotional issues.--MONGO (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

Is there anything actually added by the provisional nature of the motion below? Cant any uninvolved admin already re-impose a topic ban as a DS if they feel it required, AP2 still being a topic area covered by DS? Just seems like a distinction without a difference in lifting the ban and the way it is worded below. nableezy - 18:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee[edit]

Possibly moot, but IMO reasonable editors who are on the more-conservative side than the average editor ought to be valued for what they can offer, even if considering their pov sometimes feels frustrating, because considering their pov is necessary for arriving at NPOV. When only one or two people are arguing for something, it can look like disruption and feel like it to those who are in the majority politically. That doesn't mean we should treat it as disruptive. It might just mean we need to pry open our own minds and that we should think about that possibility.

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Clerk note: I have reformatted this request to match the expected format of an ARCA. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Recuse CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear the answer to starship.paint's query, but at the moment I am leaning towards accepting the appeal. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Hi - are you appealing on the merits or because the sanction is no longer necessary? Parts of your appeal suggest the former and others suggest the latter. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the information of my colleagues, I am not currently inclined to grant the appeal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a case of "I'm not interested in returning to the topic but it just bothers me to have a blot on my record"? Or is it because you are interested in editing about antifascism in the US, or expanding your editing about American politics in general? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am really good at being inactive, so I'm not going to hold a few days against anyone. Since Atsme asked for time, I'll wait to vote till she's had time to follow up. If it helps focus your thoughts, I think it would be helpful to respond to some of the concerns expressed above about your previous commitments, and particularly Awilley's last post. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Atsme, the language in Talk:Fascism and the article lede look to be in sync to me. Are you referring to an issue that was since fixed? --BDD (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Atsme, you'll see I supported below, but I encourage you to indeed make IDGAF your friend, and refer to it often when editing related to American politics. We may not have a formal definition of backsliding, but please take the criticism here to heart: if you say you're not going to do something, don't do it. Simple stuff, really. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wbm1058: Our colleagues at Wiktionary are a better place to check the basic meaning of a term, since the dictionary defintion of a term usually isn't encyclopedic. Their definition, as I noted to Atsme above, may not exactly correspond to a proscribed activity here, but presumably we never want to see editors regressing "to a previous, worse state". While this may be a side note, I wouldn't want a takeaway of this ARCA to be "ArbCom says there's no such thing as backsliding." --BDD (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also amenable to this request at the moment. If people are concerned about Atsme's promises, we could put a "provisional" clause on the removal, that an uninvolved administrator can return it and if none have after 12 months it is completely removed. Worm^TT(talk) 16:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soibangla, "play the ball", predicting future retaliation does not advance the discussion in a constructive direction, nor does it contribute to good decision making. (WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, Minority Report (film)...)

WTT's proposal sounds like a reasonable way forward. Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time I would also support WTT's idea. — Wug·a·po·des 06:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not inspired by the total disengagement on Atsme's part on the 4th. --Izno (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: American politics 2[edit]

Atsme's topic ban from post-WWII Anti fascism in the United States is provisionally lifted for a period of twelve months. If at any point before 1 January 2023 an uninvolved administrator feels that Atsme is not able to edit productively in this area, they may re-impose the topic ban.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Primefac (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Wug·a·po·des 21:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this strikes the right balance. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim_(talk) 15:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Albury 16:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BDD (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly. --Izno (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't oppose when the admin who imposed the original sanction supports its removal. But I think this is still not quite on the mark. There are some real concerns expressed here about the way you've approached your previous commitments in the area and your style of interaction on political topics, quite different from the friendly and affable Atsme we all know. I think sticking to IDGAF and just avoiding the topic altogether is exactly the right approach! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

I cannot support this but I won't stand in the way. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that all editors have an obligation to edit from a neutral point of view, and that those who make their opinions on a topic well-known should be extremely cautious about editing in that area. I recognize that mine is a minority opinion, particularly within the U.S. Politics topic area, and as such I will not actively oppose this motion, but I do hope that Atsme and others consider this perspective. – bradv^🍁 00:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't support this as well. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from arbitrators: @Bishonen: Psychological value mostly. Like a New Year's resolution. And something to point to for extra support if there is a problem and an admin does need to restore the ban. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] 3 isn't so important. Make it 2, make it a week, whatever.

[2] I left out "involved" intentionally.

[3] Whatever length you decide, make it short enough you won't actually consider overturning it before it times out

[1]

[2]

[3]

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	7
1–2	6
3–4	5

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6