This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ReaderofthePack (talk | contribs) at 17:48, 8 July 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:48, 8 July 2013 by ReaderofthePack (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Certainly. They just need to do it concisely. Sandstein 04:19, 3 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)
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)
- Sturgeon's Law.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Then why not spell out the rules of engagement a bit more tightly so that everyone—or most people—engage as admins do there? And keep the word limit (or make it shorter). Tony (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- No objection to that, though the red box with instructions is already quite long. Maybe someone has a good idea how to communicate these expectations, but I'm not sure if they would be heeded much. Sandstein 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Then why not spell out the rules of engagement a bit more tightly so that everyone—or most people—engage as admins do there? And keep the word limit (or make it shorter). Tony (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sturgeon's Law.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 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)
- 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)
- @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)
@AQfK - Yeah, that's what I thought too though I can't exactly remember right now. There was a request to limit comments to 500 words but I can't quite remember how it went and whether or not it was supported by either the Arbs or the community. I'm also too busy to actually find a diff to the request and as you say, it's a whole big mess over there. Sandstein, did you comment on that request/motion? Volunteer Marek 04:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, as far as I recall I proposed some sort of word limit after we had several cases case where an editor posted 5,000+ word screeds, and eventually there was consensus to impose the same word limit that is in effect at WP:RFAR. Sandstein 06:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- As an observer from the peanut gallery, my opinion is that 500-word limits imposed on subjects of AE requests are likely to be unfair to the editors accused. Wouldn't a third of the word count previously posted by other accounts be a more reasonable limit on responses (as long as the tightest limit was 500 words in any case)? Italick (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Editors can in any event ask administrators for permission to exceed the limit, which I would be ready to grant whenever the situation would otherwise be unfair. Perhaps less ready if the user has already used 1000 words to complain about the perfidy of his opponents who are trying to impede the progress of truth. Sandstein 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying. I think it might be helpful to formalize the process by which communication limits are extended. First, I think that an editor's answer to a direct question from an administrator should not count against other communication limits on the page. Those answers are expected and are not just being offered up. An administrator could give a word allowance for the response, and it could be 500 words if the allowance is unstated. Then, there could be a section of the page for discussion proposals by the subject(s) of the AE request. I see this as a section where parties request questions from administrators. A proposal should usually fit within 75 words. Such a process solicits a lot more communication from the AE request subject(s), while it should get them organized about what they want to say, resulting in fewer terribly long screeds. Italick (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not a big fan of instruction creep. In the rare cases where more space is needed, I expect that the users involved will be able to work something out. Sandstein 11:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying. I think it might be helpful to formalize the process by which communication limits are extended. First, I think that an editor's answer to a direct question from an administrator should not count against other communication limits on the page. Those answers are expected and are not just being offered up. An administrator could give a word allowance for the response, and it could be 500 words if the allowance is unstated. Then, there could be a section of the page for discussion proposals by the subject(s) of the AE request. I see this as a section where parties request questions from administrators. A proposal should usually fit within 75 words. Such a process solicits a lot more communication from the AE request subject(s), while it should get them organized about what they want to say, resulting in fewer terribly long screeds. Italick (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Editors can in any event ask administrators for permission to exceed the limit, which I would be ready to grant whenever the situation would otherwise be unfair. Perhaps less ready if the user has already used 1000 words to complain about the perfidy of his opponents who are trying to impede the progress of truth. Sandstein 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- As an observer from the peanut gallery, my opinion is that 500-word limits imposed on subjects of AE requests are likely to be unfair to the editors accused. Wouldn't a third of the word count previously posted by other accounts be a more reasonable limit on responses (as long as the tightest limit was 500 words in any case)? Italick (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
AN/I
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| For rising above "difference anxiety" as manifest from the statement about religion at Drg's ban appeal. (I'm not gloating about the block though.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC) |
Hello
Concerns discussed. Sandstein 13:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wanted to say a couple of things:
- You closed the AE request after it was open only 2 days over the weekend. You didn't give another admin a chance to weigh in. I don't think that's proper with such a serious complaint even if you personally think it's "vexatious" (which let me assure you it wasn't).
- I've been editing in the topic area for years and have a completely clean record. Not so much as a short block for edit warring. I've submitted successful AE complaints in the past. I haven't so much as made a single comment there for almost a year. I am not a serial AE abuser and again, even if you think my complaint was "vexatious" (it wasn't), your sanction is unproportionally harsh. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Two days are plenty of time for any interested admin to comment; in addition AE actions do not in principle require discussion at all. As to the appropriateness of the sanction, it is too light if anything. I considered imposing additional sanctions for your confrontative and provocative approach to discussions, but that would need a separate request and a more thorough examination, including of the conduct of the editors with whom you disagree. Sandstein 07:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- In principle you are right. In practice AEs are seldom (if ever?) closed by one admin after two days.
- You don't really need to impose any more sanctions since, as I said, I don't think I can in good conscious volunteer my time at a place where Jew-baiting is allowed, and now I see that complaints are closed without serious discussion by uninvolved people (you know that except Iselilja everyone who commented is involved up to their eyeballs, and shows up to support Nishidani every time he's at AE, which happens quite regularly). Not only that, the complainer is smacked with a disproportionate sanction pour encourager les auteres. No wonder the only Jews left working in this topic area are the anti-Zionist ones. Misplaced Pages is sure living up to its reputation, unfortunately. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- And one last thing: If someone told you that as your kids dress up as a fairy, or batman, or a princess or whatever and cheerfully go outside to celebrate Purim, what they're actually celebrating is the deliberate killing of a large group of people from a specific ethnic group, you might also become "confrontative and provocative". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nice Guy is right, we can't use modern terminologies when speaking about mythical events. Please read Purim#In recent history on how it sounds like. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- However Nice Guy's us-them approach isn't the best approach to take while editing Misplaced Pages. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently speaking about Jews in the same terms the Nazis did is not as big a problem as complaining about that kind of behavior is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nice Guy, this us-them approach doesn't work, it leads to sanctions: blocks and bans! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also don't forget Godwin's law. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nice Guy, this us-them approach doesn't work, it leads to sanctions: blocks and bans! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nice Guy is right, we can't use modern terminologies when speaking about mythical events. Please read Purim#In recent history on how it sounds like. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For your sound understanding of the right atmosphere necessary for building a great encyclopaedia as manifest from your comments and actions around the Drg-Saedon matters. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC) |
Violation
A user who has been topic banned under WP:ARBAA2 has violated the ban here and here and has created an article about the conflict (See: Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War) Even though the user appealed for an appeal and has been permitted to edit only Azerbaijani sports articles, he/she continues to violate his/her ban. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, please use WP:AE for such requests. Sandstein 11:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sandstein, there's no need to an AE request, he is already topic banned and is violating it. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- And your request for me to do something about it is a request for arbitration enforcement, which is what WP:AE is for. Which means you need to spend a few minutes to actually write up a proper submission with links and dated diffs as evidence, and a place for the other user to respond, which is the point. Sandstein 17:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sandstein, there's no need to an AE request, he is already topic banned and is violating it. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Ava's Demon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ava's Demon is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ava's Demon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)