Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Note: This talk page should only be used for discussion about the way arbitration enforcement operates: how to use the enforcement noticeboard, who can post and why, etc. All discussion about specific enforcement requests should be routed through the main noticeboard or other relevant pages for discussion. Discussion about the committee in general should go to a wider audience at WT:AC or WT:ACN. → Please click here to start a new topic. ←

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Note about these archives In 2008 the committee amalgamated all talk pages of the various arbitration requests subpages, and from then AE-related discussion took place at WT:AC. In 2015 this decision was overturned and AE regained a stand-alone talk page (with the committee ruling that it should have one solely for procedural and meta-discussion, with it not being used to rehash enforcement requests themselves). There are therefore two distinct archives for this page. Archive 3 and onwards are from after the restoration of the talk page. Archive 1 and 2 above are the archives from before the amalgamation.

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

Pinging recent AE admin regulars Sandstein, NeilN, GoldenRing, Seraphimblade, and EdJohnston. Would I be allowed to bring this type of case here, or do I have to take it to Arbcom? Many thanks. - MrX 🖋 13:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, we can address any type of unacceptable conduct in areas covered by discretionary sanctions at AE. I'm generally not opposed to extensions to word limits as long as they're genuinely needed, rather than used for useless repetition and walls of text. That said, though, a complex and nuanced pattern of abuse might be better suited to ARCA or even a full case where it can be examined in more detail. Thre ArbCom can also craft appropriate sanctions as needed, whereas AE admins are constrained to the scope of discretionary sanctions. So if you bring it here, we'll certainly do the best we can with it, but it sounds like the type of thing that's ultimately had to be referred to ArbCom. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response Seraphimblade. I had not considered ARCA, but that may be good option in this case. - MrX 🖋 14:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Seraphimblade. While word limits can be extended when needed, AE is designed for individual actions in relatively simple cases. It's not set up to handle complicated patterns of misconduct; you'd need an ArbCom case for that. Sandstein 15:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One reason for the word limit is to force people to be clear in their complaint. If Seraphimblade trusts the judgment of some admin, they could send their evidence to them for review before filing it in public. The purpose would be to get suggestions to focus the material better. In terms of the pure word limit, I have seen people collect diffs in their own user space, usually with a provision that these personal evidence pages would be deleted when the complaint closes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like that idea of "trusts the judgment of some admin, they could send their evidence to them for review before filing it in public" because that makes it not public until after being prescreened by someone that may later be rendering judgment. Not a good idea at all if I may say so.MONGO 16:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about leaving the bulky version of the evidence for that admin to look at on their user talk (by prior agreement). Then nothing is hidden, but the oversize version doesn't have to fill up AE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that if an administrator were approached privately for review of a potential request, they would mention this if participating in deciding on the outcome of the subsequent request. Or indeed just consider themselves involved -- if they had offered advice -- and therefore not participate. MPS1992 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these responses, it seems to be that the best course would be to take it to AE then, if admins believe it's too involved, it could be closed and taken to ARCA or Arbcom. There are actually 2-3 editors who, if they were topic banned from American politics, would improve the editing environment exponentially. (Actually, one of those editors would probably be site banned.) - MrX 🖋 17:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW if there's anything I can do to help lower the drama level, please ask. I've unwatchlisted most of the politician/overtly political articles because I'm so sick of it, and I'd like to feel like I could resume editing some of them again without feeling like I'm walking into a kindergarten again. So if I can help someone make a good AE or ArbCom case against one of the worst offenders, I'm 100% bout it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you have someone in mind for the title of "one of the worst offenders"? - MrX 🖋 17:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I also have a mental list of 2 or 3 people that make the topic a very contentious place. I wonder if all our lists are the same. Natureium (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC) It appears that your worst offender was not one I was thinking of. Natureium (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, no. Just got the impression from your comments here that the party in question would end up being one of the worst offenders.

To be honest, I could probably make up a list of the worst offenders if asked, but that would just be fanning flames that should really be put out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Like Seraphimblade, I'm not opposed to extending the word limits here but depending on the editors you're reporting, but you may want to consider a full Arbcom case (who might very well kick it back to us in the end, saying admins can handle it). It won't be a simple case like breaking article restrictions. If sanctions are imposed, the likely appeals will go to Arbcom anyways (with a side detour through WP:AN if the appellant is feeling particularly adventurous) and since the case isn't about straightforward article edits the committee will likely have to look at the evidence again to make sure sanctions were justified and not grossly disproportionate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NeilN. I appreciate your insight.- MrX 🖋 22:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The ARCA request has just been declined after an individual admin action, but I said something just before the close that relates to the advice given here, and I very much hope that the AE admins will give serious thought to it: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that I should reproduce it here instead of asking everyone to look at the diff. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[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)

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

Atsme is a wonderful person with a great deal of patience and a kind heart. She is very easy to work with in other subject areas and a joy to banter with on user talk pages. That being said, she can be ridiculously frustrating to engage with on political talk pages. Diffs showing my own frustration with her have been provided above. However, this isn't just reflective of Atsme, but of the topic itself, as any trip through the minefield can be.

Our political articles are suffering because we've let things get as bad as they are. Good editors turn into immature dipshits (not referring to Atsme here) when they get into arguments on political talk pages, or at the very least become opinionated demagogues, loudly pushing a POV while equally loudly proclaiming not to have any POV at all. Imagine a Wikipedian who would disagree with the statement "Everybody has biases." I can, but all of those WPians are short-terms who end up indeffed. Every reasonable person knows we all have biases. But that understanding disappears for many of our best editors the moment they click on a talk page of an AmPol article. I can't count the number of editors with blatantly obvious political POVs who had the sheer audacity to tell me directly that they have no political views.

I almost always have more productive discussions with creationists and fringe theory pushers than I do with editors in AmPol. It's disgusting, it's ridiculous and it's beneath the dignity of any respectable editor to wallow in it. Yet too many of us do, because it was a slow slide into the abyss that we could not see from the inside.

If anyone doubts me, go look for an RfC in AmPol with, let's say, at least 10 participants. It doesn't matter really what it was about, so long as it wasn't utterly mundane (such as whether to use em-dashes or regular dashes). Go find one. When you do, you will find an RfC in which one side of the debate was beaten into submission through either exhaustion or sheer numbers. You will find that the editors who took a certain political stance (liberal or conservative, pro-Trump or anti-Trump, etc) in that discussion will have reliably taken the same exact stance in every other discussion they were involved in. You will see someone rather obviously getting upset. If you don't see someone trolling, show that RfC to an editor with opposing politics to your own. They'll find a troll. Because that's what AmPol has become: a proxy battleground for the culture wars raging in the West right now. Well, we're an encyclopedia. We're supposed to be above that shit.

It's long past time for the Arbs to wade in and start to break things up. As I've said before: the constant bickering and fighting isn't a symptom of the problem: it's the problem itself. In such a divisive political climate as exists now, many fair-minded and experienced editors (read: admins) are refusing to hop in and hold others to task. And who can blame them? We have editors engages in projects that are just this side of academic research attempting to prove WP has a political bias. Anyone making an argument for anything in the topic -regardless of their position or the qualities of their arguments- will be inevitably accused of bias. There are clearly demarcated sides, despite the majority of participants claiming not to have any political views at all. But it's obvious! Which of us couldn't, right now, put together a list of the right-wing editors and another of the left-wing editors? If you say you can't: you're either a liar or you've never spent much time editing in politics. And all of our lists would be all but identical. It's obvious that the topic is a battleground, and who in their right mind wants to wade into that and immediately get caught up in the press? No-one. I don't blame the admins for not jumping in.

With individual admins unwilling to strictly enforce the DSes on AmPol, it's time for the Arbs to get their own hands dirty. Put out the fires and soak everything down to prevent new ones for a while. Give editors who care the chance to rebuild that topic, and stay vigilant for future arsonists. Most of all, try to make the cesspool that is AmPol work like the rest of Wikipedia. If we can't do that, then we might as well just all quit editing, because we've given up on being an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll just add that I wholly agree that the situation around AP2 is extremely systematic of factors both within and outside en.wiki, and I have tried to find ways to address them (focusing more on recognizing WP:NOT#NEWS remains policy, recentism is a valid guiding principle, and recognizing what the situation really is if you look past what RSes simply say). Those like Astme that even dare question the views of the mass media get nailed against the wall (though other editor issues are coupled against this). There needs to be a rather significant shift of views of how to use policy and guidelines properly to develop these articles so that they don't turn into constant battlegrounds, which we can do by avoiding the whole recentism issue and stay out of the bickering that happens in the media. --Masem (t) 19:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly there are serious content issues around all of this. But for purposes of AE, I'm really concerned with conduct issues. It's not enough for admins looking at an area under DS to say that someone is just being heated in discussions and beyond that it's a content dispute. I think admins at AE really need to treat this as something where ArbCom has already decided that strong actions must be taken because nothing else has worked. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The conduct and content issues are unfortunately tied together. We can impose stricter and stricter conduct controls, but at some point the amount of admin attention to keep editors in line without addressing the content issues is going to be a losing proposition (I would already argue we're past that point). If we have to keep escalating actions on more and more editors, something else is very much wrong with this area. --Masem (t) 20:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(And to add, I am fully aware ArbCom/AE is conduct review, and not suited for content review, but this is a very unusual situation. --Masem (t) 20:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, I know you are aware of that. :) But it's not that complicated: editors disrupt these pages, you topic ban them. (For difficult content issues, the community can have RfCs, but those will just be shouting matches for now.) It's either a bunch of topic bans, or a new ArbCom case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Give admins wide berth to impose short corrective topic bans, and if editors don't change their approach, make the topic bans longer. Create a disincentive for disruption.- MrX 🖋 20:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, topic bans are "indefinite" in length, but subject to appeal after six months. I'm pessimistic about disincentives; we need something more like disinfection. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)They already have wide berth to do that. It seems to me that what they need is encouragement to use that wide berth more often. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, thanks. That's what DS are for: use them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Typically, topic bans are "indefinite" in length - I don't think that's true. I have seen a handful of admins who monitor articles and talk pages, and impose moderate sanctions, with escalation for repeat behavior. The same happens at AE on a fairly regular basis.- MrX 🖋 20:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. But I think what you are describing as escalating are blocks, not t-bans. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @ Masem: Not everyone interprets WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM in the same way, nor is there even consensus that keeping the encyclopedia up to date is a bad thing. There are valid arguments on both sides of that debate, but using that policy and that supplement as weapons to win disputes is bad for everyone. In my observation, NOTNEWS is almost always used to mean "don't use news stories as sources" or "wait until the news is no longer news", when that is simply not what the policy says. In fact, the argument is excessively used in American politics, while everyone turns a blind eye to it when there's a plane crash, terrorist incident, royal wedding, or a sporting event.

The source of much of the discord in American politics articles comes from people with strong ideological views who distort the rules to get their way, and people with strong views who resort to basic human behavior in disputes (personal attacks, incivility, bloviating, sarcasm, innuendo, defensiveness, harassment, and so on). In my opinion, the later should be dealt with more quickly and on sight, but with milder, but escalating, consequences (1 week topic ban, 2 week topic ban, 1 month topic ban, 3 month topic ban, etc). The more nuanced behavior as we saw at the ARCA case deserves a formal review and an opportunity for the the accused to defend themselves. I've been editing in this topic area for six years, and the basic issues are still the same, but probably more visible and active because of the current political environment.- MrX 🖋 20:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The more we talk about content issues or societal issues, the less that admins are going to do. At AE, it's not about content. My strong message is: bad conduct → topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be curious to know how you would handle the current Rusf10 case where content is deeply intertwined with conduct. - MrX 🖋 20:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it's tl;dr, and how I would do it is really beside the point. If you mean that some cases are too difficult to settle on a sanction, then I'd say don't sanction on those, but there will be other editors, other cases, where sanctions will be indicated. As a general rule, when content is heavily involved, I'd say admins should look at what appears to be the consensus and whether the reported editor is working with consensus, or disrupting it. And if the issue has no consensus, then focus on conduct: it's not that hard to recognize incivility, fillibustering, IDHT, or a pattern of POV-pushing, regardless of the content. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! You said a mouthful. Instead of using this flawed system of providing diffs with dates, we should require the reporting party to summarize the conduct, point the admins to the specific discussions or edit history, and let the (topic)banhammer swing. If the conduct is not obvious, then require that diffs be presented, or just dismiss the case. Another problem with the current AE system is that some admins are conflicted used about whether they can act independently, or have to wait for consensus to form. My understanding is that AE is supposed to lean toward the former. - MrX 🖋 23:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to drag this off point, the issue with NOT:NEWS/recentism is not that we can't be up-to-date (we should include relevant, incontestable, factual information when it timely to do so), but that there are a large segment of editors that want our articles to be up-to-date on the public discourse and opinion, which means we are immediately getting involved in a boatload of systematic biases from inside and outside WP. That is fueled by conduct issues - editors insisting information must be added and refuse to see beyond the now, leading to inflexibility in consensus-building discussions and the escalation of battleground mentality. The more we only keep up-to-date on facts and not opinions, the faster we can defuse the situation that's affecting conduct. That is something within Arbcom/AE's power to enforce if that's decide that way. --Masem (t) 21:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've observed, recentism is one of the biggest problems when it comes to disagreements. Trying to keep a log of everything that happens in politics on a day-to-day basis is not the purpose of wikipedia. Maybe a ban on adding events that happened for even the first week after them would help to wait until we have solid information from reliable sources. A year would make the articles and disagreements infinitely better, but that's a big stretch of NOTNEWS. Natureium (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the right way to do it, but I do not see that really happening. Heck it is almost impossible to get a day without name calling. PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely rare that the content challenged on Am Politics-related pages on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS turns out to be inaccurate. Articles would suffer in quality by forcing editors to hold off on adding RS content, even for a few weeks - it becomes harder to find RS, editor memories start to fog and editor interest wanes (who wants to re-read and re-summarize something they read a month ago?). I think it's far more likely that enforced delays in adding content would increase the likelihood of incomplete, inaccurate and misleading content getting into Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean. PackMecEng (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again - adding factual, non-contentious information that clearly is in scope should be as reasonable soon as possible. Addition the reams of commentary and opinions that now exist in 24/7 news sources is not. Unfortunately the conduct issues stem from trying to rush to include the latter as content. That's the intertwined issue that is being ignored in these conduct disputes. --Masem (t) 02:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the right direction. Factual, non-contentious info should not be an issue to add as it comes out. The area I could see some gray in is identifying commentary and opinions, I am not sure a surefire way to do that consistently. PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of additions of editorials being a huge problem on Am Politics pages or that anyone really adds "24/7 news sources" (do you mean cable news show material?). In the overwhelming majority of cases where WP:NOTNEWS is invoked it's for factual information by reliable news outlets (some of the editors who make frequent use of WP:NOTNEWS do however often claim that reporting by reliable news outlets is commentary). A recent example of WP:NOTNEWS being invoked was in advocating for exclusion of content related to the Trump adm family separation policy in the Donald Trump article[2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC that launched the same day as the breaking news and closed saying it may be removed when we gain more historical perspective? Not sure that is the best example. PackMecEng (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Tryptofish: I definitely understand where you're coming from but take a look at the latest request regarding Rusf10. We have admins recommending everything from boomerang sanctions for the reporter to sanctions against Rusf10. And admins acting unilaterally in these types of cases risk getting the same flak Sandstein does - being called WP:INVOLVED and being asked/told to step away. Acting decisively is one thing; going out on a limb and getting it cut from behind you is another. Admin actions are reviewable and unlike Arbcom we have to provide evidence ("probation", cough, cough) to the community that our sanctions are not repeatedly significantly disproportionate or grossly disproportionate.

I also looked at WP:GMORFC. That RFC was about achieving consensus on content. The problems in the AP area stem from behavior (the content is ever-changing) and that's much harder to control. You cannot hold a RFC and one editor's "innocent" aside is another editor's blatant aspersion. One side's whitewashing/attack content is another side's attempt to follow NPOV. One editor's "just repeating common knowledge/views" is another editor's partisan advocacy. All this being said, I do think things in this area are coming to a head and that we'll see more topic bans of the regular editors if things continue the way they have. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, NeilN, those are thoughtful replies. My GMO point was not that anyone should hold another content RfC, but that admins are at liberty to do a wide variety of things when authorized by DS, and should feel empowered to do so. But getting to the present case, yes, it's a difficult situation when the AE admins cannot agree among themselves. Maybe it means there is a need for the admins to really talk it through until they reach a consensus. Or maybe it means that more than one editor needs to be restricted. As for acting unilaterally, I can easily understand how that can be scary, but I think it all comes down to, first, thinking it through carefully, and then being able to justify the action. There will be users in the peanut gallery making all kinds of criticisms, but that just comes with the territory. So, either there is safety in numbers, with admins agreeing, or there are admins who haven't looked closely enough and are missing the point, in which case it's reasonable to look closely and do what you think is the right thing. But I've gotta say, for some recent AE threads that I've been directly involved in and that were AP2-related, that kind of thing wasn't the problem. A lot of the problem was either a matter of just one admin looking and not looking closely enough, and then it got closed, or a couple of admins looking, largely agreeing, with one thinking about issuing a sanction, but then another admin comes along and closes it before the discussion is over. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now read the Rusf10 discussion, although I have not looked into it as deeply as I would have if I were a reviewing admin. For what it's worth, I agree with you, NeilN. I also think that there is one admin there who is very much on a different page than the other admins, and who is spectacularly wrong. Setting aside that one opinion, I think I do see an emerging consensus among the rest of the admins. And this is not the kind of blatant case that I am seeing with other editors in the topic area, so it's not representative of the kinds of situations where a t-ban is just crying out to be imposed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to post that AE is somewhat broken, as seen by the divergent discussion about Rusf10 which has boomerangs being aimed in every direction. I don't think this is what was envisioned when for AE. was created. Some sort of reform should be considered.- MrX 🖋 21:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that AE is broken, we've seen similar results in recent gun politics cases. The various talk page alerts and warnings imply that admins are standing by, ready to skip the formalities and hand out bans on sight, but instead the enforcement procedure leads to Bureaucracy Central where admins hem and haw over whether to sanction editors who have been given five or six last chances. –dlthewave ☎ 23:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That reminded me: another factor that AE admins should consider in difficult cases is whether or not there have been multiple previous last chances. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the solution is to limit the use of the sources i.e edits should be based only scholarly literature --Shrike (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider "scholarly literature"? PackMecEng (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues that likely raised this point was the debate of the use of a JAMA article (though it was a JAMA Opinion piece but certainly would be all means be called scholarly). And scholarly literature is far too narrow a segment for how much we've already included in WP, nor with the recentness that we generally want. It's a reasonable target, but not an absolute one. --Masem (t) 22:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that scholars, in particular historians (the field that produces the most useful content for Wiki purposes, i.e. detailed narratives), do not really cover contemporary topics at great length or in a way that would be of use to those of constructing Wikipedia articles. Scholars also heavily rely on the very same news sources that editors use when constructing Wikipedia articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About AE being broken: when Rusf10's case was a stalemate, I knew exactly who admins would come and pile against an editor with a right-wing slant (although one admin whose nick starts with a 'J' is still missing). It's sad you can expect some cases go along political lines. And you should be ashamed for bringing stuff to AE that you could easily work out with the other editor if you didn't hate their guts for political reasons. The crazy part is that despite all this, AE still works a lot better than ANI where the bloodhounds will be calling for indefinite blocks and boomerangs for every possible case. --Pudeo (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of many parts of the problem is the perception that the way that Wikipedia works is "against an editor with a right-wing slant" – or against one with a left-wing slant. If things were to work according to the theoretical ideal here, editors would certainly have various personal opinions, but would not edit with a "slant" in either direction. And there are some editors who try hard (subject to human limitations) to do just that. But it is remarkably easy to find editors active in AP2 now, who always edit in either a right-wing or a left-wing direction – I can think of some, who have a great many contributions, who if asked to show a single diff of an edit where they "edited for the opposition", would not be able to come up with a single such diff. And isn't that pretty much the definition of a POV pusher? And those editors who do edit in a POV way are the ones most likely to complain of a system that is biased against them (speaking there in general terms, not implying anything about the editor who made the comment above). I could almost go as far as to say that any editor who cannot provide those kinds of diffs should be topic-banned, and that this might be a useful factor to look at in AE cases. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closely related to that, I see that some data about possible "slant" at AE are being compiled at User:James J. Lambden/sandbox. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I think that list speaks volumes about bias here. It also show that Volunteer Marek is the most frequent participant at AE. Almost unbelievable that someone could be involved in 14 filings (in one way or another) over a one year period and never be sanctioned himself. Something is wrong.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is so hard to believe? There have been a lot of disruptive editors, SPAs, socks, POV pushers, and gamers. Somebody has to report them or the situation would never improve. Ironically, the Lamden/Lionelt list (and this one) is apparently being created to show how biased Wikipedia administrators are, when in fact it's just highlighting that the dark grays are misbehavin'. A lot. Somehow, banned editor SashiRolls figures into all this.- MrX 🖋 21:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last I heard, SashiRolls is still off-wiki griping about big bad WP. The Lambden "study", in my mind, is an excellent example of a flawed study. One hopes it won’t be used in any attempt to fix AE. O3000 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors working with mainstream sources to write NPOV content have no reason or inclination to be disruptive or to violate DS. The wind is at their backs. On the contrary, it would be surprising if the bulk of the disruption were not from fringe, poorly-sourced, nothere, or POV editing. That's true in all subjects across the Project. It's true in real life as well. Why would it ever be otherwise? How could it be otherwise? SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, I think that MrX’s eloquent, truly eloquent, recent filing is a large step forward. It was declined on procedural grounds, but had the correct effect, may have awakened admins, and will not be successfully challenged. I’m not convinced that the procedures are lacking. I simply think we must make more effective use of what already exists. Yes, there is obviously a problem. But, considering the enormous and increasing divisions in the American public, I’m not convinced WP has been damaged as badly as the political environment as a whole. Clearly, we need to deal with any infection from the extra-WP field. Toward that end, much as I dislike the drama boards, I think we need to make more use of such. MrX initiated an effort. Obviously, this can affect POV pushers from any and all. So be it. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eloquent? Hardly. It is so creepy to think people are hoarding and stalking diffs over the course of several months and years to put together a case. I guarantee most of us active in that topic area could be sanctioned with cherry picked diffs taken out of context. What happened at ARCA was disgusting. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide more diffs to dispute your characterization. But, that would be piling on and serve no purpose. Forward. O3000 (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to acknowledge that discussions on AP2 talk pages don't start toxic. They generally build in that direction. There'll be one slightly incendiary but perfectly legitimate comment, and then a slightly more incendiary but also legitimate comment, and so on, and eventually the discussion reaches a point that's so toxic everyone notices, but it's far too difficult to go back and determine where the line was. There is no line, after all, only a conglomeration of things we consider acceptable, a conglomeration of things we consider unacceptable, and a massive fuzzy area lying somewhere in the middle. I've encountered this problem while hatting discussions, and because I don't want to offend anyone or get into a hissy fit, as hatting someone's comment amounts to a reprimand, I usually just leave the whole thread. I can only imagine this is so much more difficult for administrators, who are dealing with far more consequential actions than a simple comment collapse and are under far more scrutiny than us users. It's very easy to say for us non-admins to say that the admins need to do a better job enforcing sanctions and start handing out DS freely. But how many of you are willing to go to Talk:Donald Trump, or some other busy, contentious talk page, right now, and give us a list of people you would sanction for comments that are visible right now? I'd be afraid to do that, both because I'd be afraid of suggesting a sanction that there wasn't support for and because I'd be afraid of reprisal, and I imagine many admins have similar feelings. Obviously, calling someone out is not the same as applying a ban—the ban carries more authority and is thus more likely to be deferred to—but the victim is going to make a ruckus if no one else, and given that most admins are under constant, considerable scrutiny, which is often a source of some significant amount of stress, I highly doubt that inviting a shitestorm by banning a sizable chunk of editors at AP2 is high on any admin's to-do list, and I doubt it would be on any of yours if you were admins. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe it's a good thing that I am not an admin, because I would. I think there's a difference between losing one's cool once in the course of a building inferno, and repeatedly, again and again, setting the fire. I hope AE admins can tell the difference between a one-off versus repeated behavior. We have a choice here: keep allowing every discussion to deteriorate in the way described, with the resulting harm to Wikipedia, or take very seriously the fact that this is doing harm to Wikipedia and serious remedies are needed – and have already been authorized by ArbCom. A trivial one-off: let it go. A couple of significant blow-ups but not yet a chronic pattern: log a warning. A pattern: topic-ban. Just giving up is unacceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do have (somewhat outdated) standards and principles which recommend an escalating series of sanctions. An immediate long-term ban might bring an admin under scrutiny, but a warning followed by a short ban followed by a longer ban would clearly show a pattern of behavior that is unlikely to change. I've seen NeilN issue a talk page warning along the lines of "do this again and I'll ban you", sometimes followed by a short block within the same day. This gives the editor an opportunity to discuss the issue in a less-formal setting than AE and potentially correct their behavior on their own. I'd like to see more admins follow this process, reserving AE for more serious long-term disruption.

As an aside, the standards and principles linked above show how far our practices have drifted. A block on the order of hours or days is a bit laughable for AE cases that often last a week or two. –dlthewave ☎ 17:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: You know, I've never come across that page. Thanks for pointing it out. And yes, excepting particularly egregious or repeated cases, my standard practice is to warn about behavior and then sanction if the behavior continues. I will also sanction if the editor doesn't see their behavior as problematic (e.g., won't self-revert or insists other editors are vandals) to prevent future disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where would the appropriate place be to discuss modifying and or removing the word limit for responses to complaints? Here or ARCA? nableezy - 17:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: If you are talking about the word limit for responding to requests at AE then this is the place. If you are talking about the word limit for responding to requests at ARCA then you want Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then this would be the place. I would like to propose that the 500 word limit apply only to the initial response to a complaint. It is manifestly unfair for a user to be disallowed from defending themselves from further accusations introduced after the initial complaint due to the word limit. In this edit an admin removed responses to further comments following the initial complaint. It strikes me as absurd that a. the initial complaint was allowed to grow past 500 words without once being forcibly refactored (in fact claiming the limit doesnt apply to responses) and b. that other diffs of supposed misconduct can be introduced by other users (eg here) with the reported user unable to respond due to the word limit. I understand being an admin at AE is not the easiest job on Wikipedia, but basic fairness would suggest that a user be allowed to respond, in full, to any accusations made against him or her. And this limit makes that impossible. So, if there needs to be a limit at all (and personally I dont think so, it isnt like it takes more than 10 minutes to read a thousand word response), then I think it should only apply to the initial response. nableezy - 15:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there does need to be a word limit. AE isn't as bad as arbcom (we received a several-page word document appeal in my time on the committee, and people like Worm That Turned remarked that this was far from the longest they'd seen), and part of the idea of a word limit is to try and focus people's comments to the actual meat of the matter - nobody benefits from TLDR waffle. That doesn't mean that the current limits are correct though and inconsistent enforcement of word limits definitely is poor form. There is a balance to be struck and I wonder if something like (all limits excluding diffs, usernames and page titles*) would be better:

• Filing party 300 word statement
• Responding party 300 word response
• Other involved parties 300 word statements
• All involved parties: up-to 200 words follow-up per alleged incident**. Any subsequent follow-ups max 100 words.
• All uninvolved commenters: up to 200 words, including follow-ups.

This has the advantage of being much fairer, but the disadvantage of being much more complicated. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*A dispute involving Sandstein regarding the Shenge article should not be treated differently to one involving The Blade of the Northern Lights at List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars (users and articles chosen randomly). ** If three people talk about different incidents you get 200 words for each, if they all talk about the same one you get 200 words only. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of keeping the current overall 500 word limit, which is the same as for arbitration requests. This forces all parties to be concise and to focus on the specific diffs at issue in the request, and prevents lengthy back-and-forths about the editors' history, the underlying content disputes, etc. Remember, AE is not a discussion board, it is a forum for requesting admins to take action. Anything not related to why action should be taken, or not, in response to the diffs in the request is out of scope. And 500 words is plenty enough for that. Sandstein 15:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there need to be limits then I would actually favor going to a further extreme on it. Remove entirely third party responses, the initial complaint is given a set limit and the response a set limit, the end. They can respond to questions from the uninvolved admins. Part of the problem is how a single complaint can morph into something else entirely due to other users bringing other issues in to the initial complaint as "involved party comments". It makes the entire process disjointed and puts the reported user at a decided disadvantage in needing to respond to several different complaints at once. And it gives the impression, sometimes without any real basis behind any of the complaints, that there is an overarching problem if this many users are bringing this many diffs. If you want to make things more efficient and more fair here I think that would go a long way. If somebody wants to introduce something to AE they can open a request. And that would be both for third party responses in support or opposition to the reported user. nableezy - 15:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be limits, but the details need to obey the rules of fair play and should be biased towards the accused editor. It is the accused editor who stands to lose the most. I would reduce third-party comments to a minimum (say 200 words), keep the reporter to 500 words, and allow the accused 500 words for initial response and 500 words in total for responding to accusations not in the initial complaint. Brief replies to questions or new accusations from administrators should be free. Administrators can decide what "brief" means, but it is definitely not ok to make an accusation then delete the reply. I believe this will reduce the overall length of most cases as well as being more fair. Zero^talk 02:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Oppose unlimited word counts for parties, but would support reductions to current limits for non-parties. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• If nothing else I would stop any comments over the 500 word limit being removed entirely. Chop anything over 500 words off, or hat everything over 500 words or something. Removing it entirely is Orwellian. Fish+Karate 08:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removing the limit entirely for respondents to a complaint. If one wishes to impose sanctions on a user it is not too much to ask that they spend the 10 minutes reading their defense. The TLDR and now youre banned method strikes me as unjust. nableezy - 15:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removing the 500-word limit for responses. I see the main problem as additional complaints made by third parties, to which the subject of the report cannot effectively respond. Imagine this (not at all unlikely) scenario: Editor A complains about Editor B (500 words), B replies, but knowing that there could be further comments or questions limits their response to 400 words. Editors C and D then each add their own complaints (another 500 words each), and B is limited to just 100 words to respond to them. Editors E, F and G then pile in, each adding their own 500 words and new complaints, which B is not permitted to respond to. B would be expected to respond to 3000 words of complaint in just 500 words. This is so obviously unfair that I don't see how anyone could defend it. The only options that will ensure a fair and transparent process are to ban additional comments and complaints altogether, or to allow the subject of a complaint 500 words for each editor raising complaints against them. RolandR (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as presently construed. I do think limiting 3rd parties (e.g. to 300 words) , and mildly increasing the complainant's word limit (e.g. to 800 words) would be useful - as well as increasing the word limit of any user whose conduct has been mentioned during the report. And I do think that in some situations - a word count extension, granted by an admin, would be due. However, I do not support an unlimited word limit for the subject(s) of the report. If the subject(s) of the report is merely defending himself, then TLDR is merely their own problem (and probably the whole stmt will be skimmed over if it is too long). However, report subjects often in their response levy accusations towards other editors - which may include the filer of the complaint and 3rd parties (whether they commented or not). In such a situation - it would be unfair for this counter-accused to have to read walls of TLDR text, and furthermore they would be unable to respond in their own word limit to the possibly quite long counter-complaint. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support/Weak oppose. I would support leaving in the word limit as written, but softening the enforcement with liberal application of IAR; clerks should not be robots, and should be able to tell the difference between someone being disruptive and someone not; on a case-by-case basis, clerks should be able to tell when exceeding the technical word limit should be allowed, versus when it is not. If the do not have the trust of the community to exercise that sound judgement, they shouldn't be clerks. --Jayron32 16:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and support the limits suggested by Thryduff. We should allow each "accuser" to make one statement and the "defendant" to respond once to each accusation. It would make sense to place the response directly below the "involved editor" statement. The system is designed for admins to fact-check these statements and examine edit histories to quickly determine whether sanctions are appropriate; there is no need for involved editors to engage in an extended back-and forth. As always the numbers can be tweaked as necessary and admins should grant reasonable extensions if needed, especially if clarification is needed or new evidence is brought forth.

Uninvolved editor statements which expand the scope of the request may be cumbersome, but they also add important context. The behavior mentioned in an AE request is often just the tip of the iceberg and the editor's behavior in other situations can help determine whether or not it is an isolated incident. –dlthewave ☎ 22:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While I get the motivation behind this, the reality is that the longer the enforcement case gets, the fewer the number of admins who are likely to read/comment on it. As it is, we have hardly any admins commenting on AE and long responses will just drive away everyone else. My impression is that a 500 word response to the original complaint, properly constructed, can usually get to the point fairly effectively.--regentspark (comment) 23:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm all for allowing more fairness in the ability to respond but removing word limits is not the way to achieve this. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reduce the limit for third-parties to 250 words and increase the limit for the accused editor. Keep the reporter to the current 500 words. I suggest 800 words for the accused editor in addition to unmetered brief responses to remarks of the handling administrators. Zero^talk 01:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removing word limits entirely at AE (or anything that goes toward achieving that), with a strong note that unnecessarily long responses may prove certain types of disruption in and of themselves. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This should be left only as a recommendation. I think admins should not cut the complaints here, unless it is obvious that a user was intentionally disruptive. A user may really need more space. Or it may be that he/she is unable to tell this concisely. Yes, this makes work of admins more difficult, but they always have the option of not responding to complaint. Removing good faith comments by other contributors (as Sandstein did on numerous occasions) was impolite to say the least, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation. One way (not the only one, of course) that responses become lengthy is when administrators hesitate to resolve complaints, and the passage of time leads editors to respond to one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A just-closed thread is a perfect example of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement was the longest coming in at over 1000 words. lol. Be careful what you wish for. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Observation. I agree with Sandstein that AE is not a discussion board. However, as Tryptofish correctly noted, the way admins are dealing with that converts AE into a de facto discussion board. Actually, the reported user does not have to respond to all accusations. It is admin's duty to analyse evidences and select those that deserve attention. As far as I understand, only a fraction (sometimes, a small fraction) of accusations deserve to be addressed by the defending party.

In other words, if the defending party addresses only those accusations that are selected by admins, and only after all accusations have been posted (by the user who filed a report and by third party users), the 500 word limit will be quite enough. . That will even decrease admin's burden: instead of reading the whole (and sometimes irrelevant) responce of the defending party they will have to read just the answers to the questions they really want to know.

By the way, as soon as Veritycheck✔️ compared AE with courts, let me remind you that the parties do not talk to each other in the court, and all conversations are mediated by the judge. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've started an inquiry that is directly related to AE, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions. AE admins may be particularly interested. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]