Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 20:59, 3 July 2013 (→500 word limit at AE: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Talk:Rumi

I have removed this statement, "It seems that Turks claim themselves as the authors of everything except what they are actually responsible for, such as the Armenian Genocide.Wfgiuliano. I felt it was inappropriate, insulting, anachronistic, and had absolutely nothing to do with Rumi or the Seljuqs of Rum. I did not know if this was enough for Admin intervention/warning, but felt I should make you aware of this. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Racial epithets!

Hi, Sandstein. Following your close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gora (racial epithet) as "merge", there's been a slow edit war on the merge target's page as editors wishing to implement the consensus clash with editors who insist on a source for every entry. Please could you review the talk page of the list, my talk page, and the edit history and provide us with a third opinion when you've done so? Thanks very much and all the best—S Marshall T/C 21:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Concern

Hello Sandstein,

A user who has been topic banned under WP:ARBAA2 has edited an Armenian page. He has broken his ban a few times already...see his/her please. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That page doesn't seem to relate to "Armenian–Azerbaijani conflicts", which is the scope of the topic ban.  Sandstein  22:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Armenian–Azerbaijani conflicts" relates to anything Armenian-Turkish as well. Just ask Mr. Know-It-All. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have far better things to be doing at the moment, but I think this merits a response. From WP:AA2: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted." One doesn't need to be a member of Mensa to know that Armenian-Turkish conflicts are related ethnic disputes. If you don't like this interpretation, your time would be better spent making a request for clarification at WP:RFAR rather than taking swipes at me on other admin's talk page - I will respect whatever ruling the committee makes on the issue. CT Cooper · talk 22:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow, after looking at the case page, I note that you are subject to an indefinite topic ban "from all articles and discussions covered under ARBAA2". Your comment above violates that ban, in addition to being incivil, as does this one below, and I am blocking you in enforcement of the ban.  Sandstein  22:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Another concern

I also wanted to inform you of another person topic banned from AA. NovaSkola has been editing Qarabağ FK continuously. Though you permitted normal non-controversial Azeri football editing, this one in particular is about a club that is named after and from the Nagorno-Karabakh region, and anything about that area is considered an AA topic. He has direcly edited parts about the clubs namesake and history, as can be seen here and here. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please use WP:AE to make such reports.  Sandstein  14:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

request for assistance

To editor Sandstein, I am contacting you as your views seemed to prevail in recent Arbitration Clarification and Amendment Request (This page was final version of "ACAR" before it was archived). Within that discussion, there were one or two or more parties who noted problems with Dudemanfellabra's behavior, and it was discussed that Dudemanfellabra perhaps should be warned about incivility. Yesterday and today, there is continuing incident going on, involving Orlady, Dudemanfellabra, Nyttend and myself. I would like to request that Dudemanfellabra be formally warned or sanctioned in some way, about this edit, with edit summary "That was probably the most petty and douchiest thing I've ever seen in my life. Grow up.". The wp:CIVIL page specifically prohibits calls to others to "grow up", as obviously insulting; the douche mention is obviously vulgar and it does offend me. I have to go look it up to understand, that it means thoroughly contemptible, and that is what I am being called. However, although I have browsed the civility guidelines and the past arbitrations, I am not clear what I am allowed and not allowed to do at this point. I am exhorted not to comment on other editors, but the distinctions between commenting on editors' behavior vs. editors themselves seem rather unclear in the guidelines and policies and arbitration statements. I consider it possible that others could call for me to be blocked from Misplaced Pages for asking, here, about whether I am allowed to respond to their behavior, because obviously i must be referring to editors or their behavior. Taken to an extreme, this catch-22-ness is impossible to deal with. I need some help, and I believe I should not be blocked for seeking to deal with troublesome behavior that is perhaps taking advantage of past arbitration, etc. So:

1. Hypothetically, if and when parties collude in a tag-team way and repeatedly follow and express contempt and disrespect, what recourse do I have? In particular, am I allowed to open ANI incident reports or RFC/U's or not, which by their nature are to comment on other editors behavior.

2. Could you take a look at wt:NRHP right now (Revision history), and perhaps comment or take some action in a stabilizing way.

sincerely, --doncram 15:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Subsequently editor Nyttend has seen fit to give me a "final warning" notice at my Talk page, calling this edit by me a "personal attack", and he has restored my initial comment in the NRHP discussion thread but not my later comment. I don't see mine as a personal attack, but had already removed it anyhow (towards trying to let the discussion there die), and decided to ask for advice here, which I did before receiving Nyttend's warning. Again, if you could comment or take some stabilizing action, I would appreciate it. I note that Nyttend, an administrator taking notice of my offense at the "douchiest" insult, chooses not to warn anyone about that, but rather to find fault with my complaint. I find this profoundly unfair and unpleasant. --doncram 15:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, it's not clear to me how all of this relates to WP:AE. Could you please provide all relevant links, per WP:GRA?  Sandstein  16:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I hoped you would accept a brief statement and direction to wt:NRHP without extensive diffs. Okay, I have revised above to include a link to This page was final version before it was archived the recent Arbitration Clarification and Amendment Request] (let me refer to this as "ACAR"), and I expand somewhat here (more than I hoped to have to do). Within that ACAR, the one or two or more parties who find some degree of issue with Dudemanfellabra's behavior include you, The Devil's Advocate, and Kumioko. In this diff, you evaluated words of Dudemanfellabra (which you quoted) with statement: "While I agree that such comments are uncollegial and confrontative and ought to be avoided, they do focus on a reasonably specific perceived content problem, rather than on Doncram as a person, which is why I would argue they fall short of being sanctionable, at least under our current (regrettably loose, in my view) civility standards." That seems to be setting forth a certain standard on what is acceptable, that limitedness of scope, that specificity, somehow matters. I would tend to agree with the principle you suggest in general, but what if the objectionable behavior is one incident in a series of arguably unnecessary complaints/comments, and if that series continues? I didn't come here for the purpose of arguing at all with you, but consider the same editor, who read your comments, going on soon after to pick out and describe my behavior in an offensive way; is that acceptable? I hope not. Also within the closed ACAR, in this diff, Dudemanfellabra states "... if he just put a little more time and effort into everything he does to make it more presentable and less quick-fix-y, the number of complaints/attacks about/on him would drop off drastically". That seemed to me to be an assertion that complaints/attacks are okay to pursue, while I believe there must be some limits, and I was and am concerned that idea of continuing to attack/complain was not repudiated. Editor The Devils Advocate comments "@Sandstein, did you see the comment Dudeman made? While one could argue that uncivil remarks such as "your trademark quick-fix, let-someone-else-clean-up-my-mess style" are better off ignored, it is quite obscene to suggest that objecting to such remarks is worthy of sanction. I would think the purpose of the probation is to keep Doncram from over-reacting or attacking without prior provocation, not to give anyone he might be in a dispute with a chance to get their licks in with impunity". I won't quote from Kumioko's comments. This should support adequately my assertion that "there were one or two or more parties who noted problems", okay?

Also I note that you stated "Doncram is warned not to approach discussions confrontatively, not to exhibit signs of ownership, not to comment on contributors rather than content, and not to assume bad faith. The editors who are in disputes with Doncram are reminded that these expectations apply to them also. Sandstein 07:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (emphasis added), in your closure of an Administrative Enforcement action.

Although I am obviously selective in what I quoted above, I don't dispute the result of the ACAR (which was technically to deny the request by Nyttend), nor do I dismiss the comments and concerns of others such as yourself and AGK and Mathsci and EdJohnston and Thryduulf and NuclearWarfare within the ACAR. Rather, I am seeking advice.

To clarify perhaps, by my original statement above that I "would like to request that Dudemanfellabra be formally warned or sanctioned in some way", I mean mostly that I would like to ask for advice on what forum and how I can request that. E.g., is it your view that I am prohibited from asking that, in every forum?

I am not now notifying all these parties mentioned here, as would clearly be necessary for an ANI or other more formal proceeding, because my point of coming here was to ask you personally for some comment or action. Your views seemed to prevail, were most cited, in the ACAR. I seek your advice about whether, or under what circumstances, and how you feel that I am allowed to comment on the behavior of others, if and when they might engage with incivility against me, for example, contrary to your own advice to them (in the emphasized text above). Please note, I was/am not seeking out confrontation, I am seeking to avoid it, but I don't want to be driven from the project in order to avoid it. And in general, although I disagree with some specifics within Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram, I accept its outcome and I am striving to abide by it. I am, however, beset with some questions of how to deal with cases of following- and negative-type behaviors. I would appreciate a discussion of cases, perhaps phrased as hypothetical cases, and guidance. For example, what if an editor terms an edit of mine as a "personal attack", when I do not agree, where/how am I allowed to dispute that, and perhaps to call the accusation a personal attack itself. I hate this. But anyhow, if you are willing to discuss, online or offline, or you have a suggestion on how I could get guidance from others, please do advise me of that. --doncram 18:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

All right... Without having read all of the above due to its length, it appears that you find the conduct of others with which you are in disputes objectionable. You may or may not be right about this, but because the arbitration case contains only remedies concerning you (and another editor not at issue here), but not concerning the editors you are now in a dispute with, I don't see how this dispute can be addressed in the context of WP:AE, other than to discuss any misconduct by you. You will therefore need to use the standard process, WP:DR, and the fora described therein, to resolve this dispute. I hope this helps, but I don't think that I can give more specific advice. Because the specifics of the dispute do not interest me, I ask that you and the people you disagree with do not use my talk page to discuss this further, but rather use each other's talk pages for that purpose.  Sandstein  22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sort of. No offense, but your replies together seem a bit unhelpful. You first demand that I provide "all relevant links" before you will respond, then you won't read "due to its length". I am left wondering whether I can rely upon your guidance. You have taken it upon yourself to judge me, taking the lead in two proceedings involving me, which happen to matter to me. You have some responsibility to read and reply thoughtfully, IMHO. I guess i will sort of rely upon your advice, and invoke this discussion, with qualification that I am uncertain of your considered opinion because you seem to refuse to provide proper consideration in giving it. This seems less than ideal. Sincerely, --doncram 19:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

500 word limit at AE

I believe that the 500 word limit was intended to apply to the initial request and statements, and not include subsequent replies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

AE isn't really supposed to be a forum for discussion. It's for requesting admin action.  Sandstein  04:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but there needs to be discussion on whether the request is actionable and if so, what the appropriate action is to handle it. As you know, I agree with the action that was taken in this particular case, but I really do think the alleged violator should be given an opportunity to defend themselves against their accusers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. They just need to do it concisely.  Sandstein  04:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, each individual response should be concise, but that doesn't mean that collectively all comments by a single editor in an AE discussion are subject to the 500 word limit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

AE is not a place for discussion, in my view. It is a place to request action. Any discussion about whether the request is actionable and what action to take needs to take place between the administrators who consider taking action, and not between anyone else. If the defendant feels the need to respond to any statements by others that are actually relevant to the outcome of the request (which is seldom the case), they can do so within 500 words, or ask an administrator to be allowed more space. In my experience, some 90% of what is said by non-administrators at AE has no relevance to the question of whether an ArbCom remedy was violated by the diffs at issue, and could easily have been omitted.  Sandstein  08:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

While you might think that AE is not the place for discussion, that's clearly not correct. The template that we use to file RfEs creates a section specifically for discussion. Why are we inviting editors at AE to engage in discussion if AE isn't the place for discussion? Obviously, that doesn't make any sense.

And, since you brought it up (not me), I strongly disagree that AE discussion is only between administrators and not between anyone else. Admins are simply editors with an extra bit. Any uninvolved editors have as much right to participate in the discussions as anyone else. It is the role of admins to carry out the consensus of these discussions. Nothing more, nothing less. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was that AE is not a place for back-and-forth discussion among the general editorship. It is for those affected by a request to make their statements, and possibly for administrators to discuss what to do about the request. Contrary to other processes of Misplaced Pages, AE is not based on consensus, and editors other than administrators and the parties to a request have no particular "right" to participate in it. That is because arbitral decisions task individual administrators with enforcing the decisions. Any form of discussion or consensus-building is not envisioned (let alone required) as part of that enforcement process, and neither is the participation of non-administrators. The AE board is just a convenient place to centralize requests, and any discussions among administrators are a matter of convenience, not a procedural requirement.  Sandstein  17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am taken aback by your comment. I'm not aware of any policy/guideline/ArbCom ruling/etc which states that RfE requests are only for admins to decide and that non-admin's opinions don't count. I'm perfectly willing to consider removing AE from my watchlist if my contributions are neither appreciated or accepted, but I would like to see which policy/guideline/ArbCom ruling/etc. specifically states that the opinions of non-admins don't matter. Can you please point me to the policy/guideline/ArbCom ruling/etc which says this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not aware of any policy concerning conduct at AE, but that's probably because none is needed. As I said, the individual arbitration decisions address individual administrators ("Any uninvolved administrator may ..."), not any group of people, so no rules for group decisionmaking are needed. However, non-administrators can of course (and are welcome to, as far as I'm concerned) usefully contribute to AE by pointing out relevant diffs as evidence, or relevant points of procedure. It's just that they don't have any authority to take an enforcement decision themselves. But because enforcement decisions are individual decisions, neither can one administrator overrule another, so the difference between admins and others is perhaps not all that important.  Sandstein  20:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't there an ArbCom ruling or motion on the 500 length limit at WP:AE? If so, what was the wording? Volunteer Marek 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of.  Sandstein  04:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: If I recall correctly, I was the editor who originally suggested the 500 word limit for AE. Unfortunately, the talk page for AE is shared with the talk page for Misplaced Pages Arbitration/Requests and there seems to be 4 sets of talk page archives making it virtually impossible to find the diff where I first made the suggestion, but I can assure you that it was not my intention that 500 word limit should apply to collectively to all posts made by an editor in a single AE discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, so you don't look as though you're operating according to an upper-class–lower-class framework, what proportion of what is said at AE by admins is tosh? 75%? Incidentally, I fully support a tight word limit. Tony (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, on average, 90% of what all people say is not very helpful. I believe there is a term for that phenomenon. But in my experience, at AE, discussions in the administrator section tend to be reasonably focused on how the request should be processed. By comparison, a high proportion of other contributions are dedicated to rehashing or continuing to fight the underlying conflict or to making sweeping allegations without evidence. That is not helpful and often counterproductive.  Sandstein  17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)