I have taken the liberty of making a back-up copy of this quite informative table off-wiki. I've added one line, but will need to look through the period 04/28 -> 05/24... Please do let me know if you have any objection to my copying your work with attribution, James. Thanks, SashiRolls (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In order to run statistics on the AE case data I recommend the following changes:
Add Type: pro-Trump or anti-Trump. Difficult to run stats on color-coded rows.
Add Filer-result: this is a code for type of sanction TBD, or no action; capturing this for the filer will provide data for boomerangs
Change Sanction to Subject-result: code for type of sanction TBD
Set data range from 8/1/16 to 7/31/17 so the dataset comprises a full year
Date
Case evidence
Filer
Filer-Result
Filer-Admins
Subject
Subject-Result
Subject-Admins
Notes
2016/08/02
Pro-Trump
Volunteer Marek
3 Month TBAN
Doc9871
✓
Bishonen *
Doc9871 (talk · contribs) topic banned 1 month from all pages related to Donald Trump by Bishonen (talk · contribs), and is further warned that any disruption in the topic areas covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban. (Link)
Based on diffs presented, classify the case evidence as either Pro-Trump or Anti-Trump. Case evidence must conclusively demonstrate either positive or negative editing on a Trump-related article and must be substantiated with a quote in Notes. Actual political orientation of editors is not considered.
Filer
User filing report
Policy
Policy violations cited by Filer
Filer-Result
No action, Warning, 24-hour block, 3-month Trump TBAN, etc. Aka boomerang. Sanction is only reported if it substantially affects editing ability at Trump-related articles.
Filer-Admins
Admins who concurred with Filer-Result
Subject
User being reported
Policy
Policy violations cited by Admins
Subject-Result
No action, Warning, 24-hour block, 3-month Trump TBAN, etc. Sanction is only reported if it substantially affects editing ability at Trump-related articles.
Subject-Admins
Admins who concurred with Subject-Result. Sanction Proposer is listed first. This is not usually the closing admin.
Notes
Case abstract. Result statement of closing admin. Link to case. Must include quote which supports Case evidence field.
I am extremely pleased to report that we have 23 months of data captured in the data collation tables thanks to Rusf10. Note that there are several errors in the tables. That said I have started graphing the data at the /research page and preliminary results from 2016-2017 are fascinating.
30% of all AE cases are in the Trump topic area. Strategic changes to reduce these cases could free up substantial editor and admin time. What is the average duration of these cases?
Pro-Trump cases are double the number of Anti-Trump cases. Why are there so many Pro-Trump cases? Could it be that Anti-Trump case filers hesitate due to boomerang?
The sanction rate in a Pro-Trump case is 60%. The sanction rate in a Anti-Trump case is 27%, and the severity imposed is far less than sanctions in Pro-Trump cases. What accounts for the 33% disparity?
There were no logged warnings during the period being studied. This begs the question are there any warnings issued post DS alert notice and prior to being reported at AE? And, what would be the effect if logged warnings were issued instead of topic bans?
49% of all cases (22) resulted in No action. Is this due to filers not understanding actionable violations?
There were only 2 boomerangs. Apparently boomerang is not anywhere near the problem it is at ANI, where the Research about ANI report found boomerang to be a significant problem--or the perception of boomerang as it were.
Admins appear to be adjudicating cases in an impartial manner.
Volunteer Marek. This editor's activities at AE are astonishing. He was involved in a total of 15 cases which is 31% of all Trump cases. He was the most frequent filer and subject. The next editor had 5 total cases. Remarkably of the 6 cases filed against him, 2 resulted in boomerangs. The only boomerangs during the period under study.
It would be helpful to know which specific policy violation(s) resulted in sanctions per the admins. And also what was the alleged policy violation(s) which caused the case to be filed in the first place. This will tell us if admins are focusing on the original reported violation or if there are fishing expeditions being conducted.
Those observations are quite easy to explain. It is normal for there to be a disparity in which side of a controversy is more likely to violate Wikipedia policies, and thus require sanctions. Regardless of topic area, that disparity almost inevitably goes against those who dislike or disagree with the predominate coverage of the topic in Reliable Sources. According to Wikipedia policy we are to required to summarize what Reliable Sources say, with viewpoints presented in Due Weight proportion to the presence of those views in Reliable Sources. Editors who dislike or disagree with predominate Reliable Sources are more likely to violate, combat, abuse, or misunderstand the policies which require an accurate summary of that coverage. For example proponents of astrology are likely to be sanctioned if they battle against the prevailing Reliable Source view that astrology is pseudoscientific.
In regards to the Trump topic, it should be entirely uncontroversial to state that majority of coverage of Trump in "Mainstream Media" is critical. Donald Trump says so himself, quite often and quite loudly. "Mainstream Media" is very nearly synonymous with "Reliable Sources". Coverage of Trump is required under policy to accurately summarize that predominantly-critical coverage. Any editor, in any topic area, must be blocked or topic-banned if they battle against accurately summarizing predominately coverage in Reliable Sources.
Any editor who thinks that Reliable Source coverage is wrong is not permitted to fight that battle on Wikipedia. They need to take that battle somewhere else. Wikipedia will be updated if and when Reliable Source reporting on the topic changes. Alsee (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alsee, very well said. Editors who adopt Trump's attitude that RS are "fake news" get in trouble here. It can't be any other way, nor should it be. Advocacy of such fringe opinions is forbidden, while defending the views found in mainstream RS is not forbidden advocacy. It is what we are supposed to do. That's why it isn't just editing of articles by using unreliable and fringe sources that can get Trump supporters into trouble; their discussions can also do that, as they often veer into forbidden "advocacy" territory, and we have policies against such discussions.
They also waste a lot of time because they are tendentious discussions that have no hope of producing good article content. They are just misuses of article talk pages to give voice to Trump's views, which we know are so often deceptive or otherwise wrong that our first reaction should be skeptical. Experience teaches that we should "just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backwards" (David Zurawik)[1] because he's known to be a "habitual liar".[2]
It's really pointless for his supporters to voice support for his views here, because everyone already knows them, and most people have rejected them as unfactual posturing. Those editors who do not reject them and advocate them here are revealing that they are drinking from poisoned wells, leading to increased scrutiny. The result is that they will and should figure largely in this table. The results so far seem to indicate that Wikipedia is working as it should, so thanks for keeping this up-to-date.
I hope that someone will update the table with my sanctions, because several are not listed. They were cases where my political beliefs were mentioned by my accuser, so it's a serious deficiency that they are not listed. That absence skews the results. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this I see that @Volunteer Marek: and I are the champs at getting reported and exonerated, both of us falsely accused of some kind of political POV, and both of us greatly reducing our participation in politics-related articles after of all this drama. SPECIFICOtalk18:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So far it has shown that admins and Wikipedia have not acted in a partisan manner, but have followed our policies. I suspect that the creator(s) of the content are disappointed in that result. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like good analysis. This isn't it. It will be interesting to see if this is kept, because it will open the door to similar lists where assumptions are make about the political nature of the underlying content (although that should be immaterial to examining user conduct—who am I to argue with WP:ILIKEIT! ) I always thought it would be enlightening to see the correlation between editors who are repeatedly sanctioned and the editors who difflessly defend them. I imagine that the Venn diagram would collapse into a singularity. - MrX 🖋 15:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the analysis and assignments of "pro-Trump" "anti-Trump" is out of place or worse. But I do believe there's room for more dimensions of data at the Arbcom DS log page. Data that would be useful to Arbcom and to the Admins who volunteer at AE. I was surprised to see some of the activity revealed by sorting the spreadsheet and I think it's contrary to the intuitions of some editors and Admins. Do you think there's a useful way for Arbcom to log more data in their DS log, so that the inappropriate contnet could be moved off this user page? SPECIFICOtalk16:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt WP:AEL is inadequate in it's current form for anything other than a basic chronological log. If there is a need to record more information, organize it differently, and analyze it, it should be through a community endorsed effort that is not designed to bolster a faulty hypothesis. I suppose in an ideal world, AE decisions would be independently audited for fairness and consistency, but I don't know that anyone has made a convincing argument for expending effort on such a initiative. - MrX 🖋 16:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably Arbcom would need to initiate organizing and publishing that kind of database. You've notified the world of the issue, so it will be interesting to see whether there's any interest. It's clear to me that this page was created for a partisan purpose and should not continue in user space. To force the question with Arbcom, would an ARCA request to enhance the logging be the channel? I don't know. SPECIFICOtalk17:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and you have my support in asking them. Arbcom setup the whole AE mechanism, so it's not unreasonable to ask them to adequately maintain it. Please ping me when you make the request so that I can participate. - MrX 🖋 17:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you add your case dates/results I imagine nobody will mind, though it would be better if you did the entire archive surrounding them. Looking into it you're mentioned more than once...-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥08:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They were cases where my political beliefs were mentioned by my accuser, so it's a serious deficiency that they are not listed. That absence skews the results. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
