Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:37, 15 August 2018

No personal comments sanction

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

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

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

Courtesy in reporting sanction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enforcement: 1-week non-escalating topic ban

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

Does this solve the problem for blatant violations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limiting how quickly events can be documented here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just stumbled in

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense?

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

Tripping up good faithed editors in order to get them blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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