| Revision as of 17:29, 30 December 2013 editTznkai (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,985 edits →WP:AE and discretion: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:49, 30 December 2013 edit undoHongirid (talk | contribs)52 edits →WP:AE and discretionNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| :Hi, thanks for dropping in. I've been working at AE on and off for a few years, and one thing that continually strikes me is the inability of most admins there to think outside the box (or at least to consider actions that require thinking outside the box). I firmly believe that admins' duty at AE is not to roboticly impose sanctions for technical violations, but to do what they believe is right for the project. And that might involve doing something that isn't an arbitration enforcement action ''per se'' (that is, the arbitration remedies are one more tool for dealing with disruption, but we're not obliged to use them). Toddst's block of Yozer1, for example, was a perfectly valid admin action, and could have stood as it was, with the AE protections lapsing after a year (something that has happened plenty of times before, but isn't exactly routine). Of course I agree that we need to take (even) more care with AE actions than with regular admin actions given the toxicity that surrounds arbitration and the special status afforded to AE actions (with which I don't entirely agree, but reluctantly accept are necessary)—that's why we spend so long discussing things, even though any admin could act unilaterally. While I don't think we should rush into things, nor should we refuse to do something just because it hasn't been done before, nor even be afraid to use our discretion. ] | ] 11:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC) | :Hi, thanks for dropping in. I've been working at AE on and off for a few years, and one thing that continually strikes me is the inability of most admins there to think outside the box (or at least to consider actions that require thinking outside the box). I firmly believe that admins' duty at AE is not to roboticly impose sanctions for technical violations, but to do what they believe is right for the project. And that might involve doing something that isn't an arbitration enforcement action ''per se'' (that is, the arbitration remedies are one more tool for dealing with disruption, but we're not obliged to use them). Toddst's block of Yozer1, for example, was a perfectly valid admin action, and could have stood as it was, with the AE protections lapsing after a year (something that has happened plenty of times before, but isn't exactly routine). Of course I agree that we need to take (even) more care with AE actions than with regular admin actions given the toxicity that surrounds arbitration and the special status afforded to AE actions (with which I don't entirely agree, but reluctantly accept are necessary)—that's why we spend so long discussing things, even though any admin could act unilaterally. While I don't think we should rush into things, nor should we refuse to do something just because it hasn't been done before, nor even be afraid to use our discretion. ] | ] 11:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::I agree, mostly. The mostly is where discretionary sanctions are authorized, it is the best time for creativity, and often the time it is most needed. I've certainly tried it myself over the years with limited success. And we certainly can't keep playing not to lose, as opposed to playing to win, which is what mechanical application of rules can get you. But I've become much more aware of how much AE is playing with fire - I've seen it, if not abused outright, misused. I've always thought administrators, at AE and globally, owe everyone else solid explanations of all they do, to provide clarity into our bureaucratic nonsense (a sour spot of enough hurdles and jargon to confuse, but not enough resources to support) - nonsense that is made worse by our near universal disdain for bureaucracy. Anyway, I think I agree with you in principle, just not as applied here.--] (]) 17:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC) | ::I agree, mostly. The mostly is where discretionary sanctions are authorized, it is the best time for creativity, and often the time it is most needed. I've certainly tried it myself over the years with limited success. And we certainly can't keep playing not to lose, as opposed to playing to win, which is what mechanical application of rules can get you. But I've become much more aware of how much AE is playing with fire - I've seen it, if not abused outright, misused. I've always thought administrators, at AE and globally, owe everyone else solid explanations of all they do, to provide clarity into our bureaucratic nonsense (a sour spot of enough hurdles and jargon to confuse, but not enough resources to support) - nonsense that is made worse by our near universal disdain for bureaucracy. Anyway, I think I agree with you in principle, just not as applied here.--] (]) 17:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Thank you == | |||
| Thank you for your suggestions sir :) ] (]) 17:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:49, 30 December 2013
|
This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.
The Signpost: 25 December 2013
- Recent research: Cross-language editors, election predictions, vandalism experiments
- Featured content: Drunken birds and treasonous kings
- Discussion report: Draft namespace, VisualEditor meetings
- WikiProject report: More Great WikiProject Logos
- News and notes: IEG round 2 funding rewards diverse ambitions
- Technology report: OAuth: future of user designed tools
What kind of a retard are you? Skin Game (Novel)
FOLLOW THE RULES. Locking a page to win a content dispute is a violation of policy and you know it, the only reason for your decline is to protect your jackbooted bookburning friends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Own THEY CAN NOT DO THIS.
Blocks should not be punitive See also: Misplaced Pages:Sanctions against editors are not punishment Policy shortcuts: WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE WP:NOPUNISH Blocks should not be used: in retaliation against users; to disparage other users; as punishment against users; or where there is no current conduct issue of concern.
THEY VIOLATED ALL OF THIS.
- I see you have reported this to ANI, so I will leave this to the folks there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:AE and discretion
Placed here, as not to clutter an already lengthy section with an essentially digressive comment, but feel free to move, link, or notify as you find necessary.
I agree generally with your position that admins should have discretion, and conceptually we can impose less severe restrictions in lieu of a block. Most of the time I've seen, when challenged, it comes down to sheer force of personality by the admin imposing the sanction, which can be pretty costly in stress levels and time spent explaining actions over and over again. Also, given the developments over the years giving enforcement actions special protection from other admins, I think a little extra solicitousness to doing things carefully is in order in general, I don't wish to suggest that I think you or any other administrator in particular cannot be trusted.--Tznkai (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for dropping in. I've been working at AE on and off for a few years, and one thing that continually strikes me is the inability of most admins there to think outside the box (or at least to consider actions that require thinking outside the box). I firmly believe that admins' duty at AE is not to roboticly impose sanctions for technical violations, but to do what they believe is right for the project. And that might involve doing something that isn't an arbitration enforcement action per se (that is, the arbitration remedies are one more tool for dealing with disruption, but we're not obliged to use them). Toddst's block of Yozer1, for example, was a perfectly valid admin action, and could have stood as it was, with the AE protections lapsing after a year (something that has happened plenty of times before, but isn't exactly routine). Of course I agree that we need to take (even) more care with AE actions than with regular admin actions given the toxicity that surrounds arbitration and the special status afforded to AE actions (with which I don't entirely agree, but reluctantly accept are necessary)—that's why we spend so long discussing things, even though any admin could act unilaterally. While I don't think we should rush into things, nor should we refuse to do something just because it hasn't been done before, nor even be afraid to use our discretion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, mostly. The mostly is where discretionary sanctions are authorized, it is the best time for creativity, and often the time it is most needed. I've certainly tried it myself over the years with limited success. And we certainly can't keep playing not to lose, as opposed to playing to win, which is what mechanical application of rules can get you. But I've become much more aware of how much AE is playing with fire - I've seen it, if not abused outright, misused. I've always thought administrators, at AE and globally, owe everyone else solid explanations of all they do, to provide clarity into our bureaucratic nonsense (a sour spot of enough hurdles and jargon to confuse, but not enough resources to support) - nonsense that is made worse by our near universal disdain for bureaucracy. Anyway, I think I agree with you in principle, just not as applied here.--Tznkai (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your suggestions sir :) Hongirid (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)