The Wordsmith (talk | contribs) →What would it take?: first stab at a proposal |
|||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
I'm curious. You have said you're open to a "more convincing" request from TRM. I'm assuming in good faith that you sincerely mean that. Since you and some others doubt the effectiveness of what he proposed, would you be willing to work on a counter proposal? There must be a way forward here that would convince you to voluntarily unblock or reduce the length, and improve TRM's communication while not unnecessarily preventing him from doing good work. Would you be willing to help work on a better solution than just blocking him when he says something rude? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC) |
I'm curious. You have said you're open to a "more convincing" request from TRM. I'm assuming in good faith that you sincerely mean that. Since you and some others doubt the effectiveness of what he proposed, would you be willing to work on a counter proposal? There must be a way forward here that would convince you to voluntarily unblock or reduce the length, and improve TRM's communication while not unnecessarily preventing him from doing good work. Would you be willing to help work on a better solution than just blocking him when he says something rude? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Well, yes, my approach is always to unblock editors as soon as I am convinced that the block is no longer needed. But I don't see myself as "working" on anything, as such. I'm an administrator, not a therapist or a social worker. It's up to The Rambling Man to convince me - and given their history of problems it won't be all that easy. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC) |
:Well, yes, my approach is always to unblock editors as soon as I am convinced that the block is no longer needed. But I don't see myself as "working" on anything, as such. I'm an administrator, not a therapist or a social worker. It's up to The Rambling Man to convince me - and given their history of problems it won't be all that easy. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
::Okay, looks like I'm making the first stab then. So much of the arguments here are over what constitute "insulting or belittling", as that is extremely vague and has been abused against TRM before. Perhaps we can make it more clear. |
|||
::Looking over the diffs provided in the original request, it seems that they all seem to be examples of him making accusations about either the motives or competence of other editors. The notable exception is him accusing an admin of not following ADMINACCT, which is neither insulting nor belittling so I'm ignoring it. If he were to agree to voluntarily refrain from discussing the suspected motives or competence of other editors for a period of six months or so, would that help convince you and provide a better path forward for everybody involved here? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 18:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:26, 9 March 2017
Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or 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: [[example article]].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
TRM
As much as I've been on the receiving end of his comments, I am not sure that this level of harsh punishment is the most constructive solution. Nergaal (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sanctions are not punitive, but preventative. They are intended to prevent the conduct that the Arbitration Committee prohibited from reoccurring. The block will do that. Sandstein 22:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, but 1 month seems unnecessary. Nergaal (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have a different view. I have commented about this issue on the AE talk page and do not intend to comment about it further. Sandstein 23:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- [edit confict] Oh I was going to leave a comment but I noticed you blocked his page from editing. Is that even allowed? Nergaal (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is allowed. See this clause of the Arbcom decision. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, but 1 month seems unnecessary. Nergaal (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I will be so bold as to support the block. Seeing as only a few weeks earlier I had asked for this sanction for TRM's abuse, was denied and even threatened by a non-admin with a boomerang, I now feel vindicated, especially after TRM's subsequent snarky grave dancing at my Talk page banning me from his Talk page, though I was required to issue him a notification. At the point in time of TRM's post, I decided any further statement in my own defense was futile and possibly dangerous. Now TRM is blocked from the very page he banned me from, which I find ironic. The main point I want to make is this: it seems clear to me that emboldened by the lack of sanctions a few weeks ago, TRM decided he could go back to his openly abusive mannerisms. I'd like to suggest a topic ban from the WP:ITN area, since he has repeatedly shown he is unable to edit constructively there without conduct the community sooner or later has to sanction. Thanks again. Jusdafax 07:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Jusdafax, I have no authority to impose a topic ban in this topic area. Such requests should be made to the Arbitration Committee or to the community. Sandstein 17:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Administrator's noticeboard
Your recent actions at Arbitration Enforcement are under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard #TRM. --RexxS (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Your enforcement action is under review
Your AE action has been formally appealed by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs). You may find the relevant discussion and make your required statement here. Thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For the courage to make this block and deal with the blowback, I award you this barnstar. Banedon (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC) |
Khojaly Massacre recognition
Hallo, Sandstein. You have deleted article Khojaly Massacre recognition. Could you please restore the content of the article with sources in the article Khojaly Massacre? In "Commemoration" section. Regards, --Interfase (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, not interested. Sandstein 17:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this covered under BANEX?
I opened a discussion on Talk:Jesus about inserting his names in various biblical languages to the lead of the article, and a user with whom I am IBANned responded. He had barely touched the page in nine months (only one of the last 1,000 edits was his, compared to 102 of 1,000 edits being mine), and his comment immediately followed one of mine; before his, 4/7 of the comments in the thread were mine.
It's not difficult to imagine he has the page watchlisted, but if that's the case he must have known that it was my question he was responding to.
I tried reporting a similar incident in the past and the thread got archived without a close, but ArbCom later recognized that several unsanctioned violations had taken place, without explicitly mentioning said incident. So I'm really not sure if this kind of thing is okay or not. If it is okay, I want to know; I've been not doing it for more than four years in relation to a different IBAN.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry - who is interaction-banned? You, the other editor, or both of you? Sandstein 08:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Both. That's why I want to know if he's allowed do what he did: if I am subject to the same terms, I want to know those terms. I have been assuming that it was forbidden to reply to the other user's comments. If I thought this was an unambiguous violation, I would just ask you to block him. (Actually I'd post on ANI: given your previous involvement, I can see why you'd be reluctant to do so.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wait. It just occurred to me that you might be asking because you had forgotten your previous involvement, rather than simply forgetting the terms of the ban (with which you weren't involved). If so, I apologize for the inconvenience.
- By "your previous involvement" I meant that you blocked him and then unblocked him following a statement by him that he had not fully understood the terms of BANEX. I can therefore see why you wouldn't want to block for something like this, if something like this is even considered a violation.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I actually don't remember anything about you two, but then I have a poor memory. Anyway, because the other editor did not respond to your comment directly, I think that this is at first glance not an interaction ban violation. Sandstein 09:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Huh. That seems kinda counter-intuitive. I asked the question, there were no other comments that he could have been responding to, and he showed up to the page after not posting there for nine months. The only other explanation would be that he saw the title of the thread in the table of contents, and responded to that without reading any of the text of the thread, and that the timing was just a big coincidence.
- I'm not going to test this and try to do the same thing to see if I don't get blocked, because it really doesn't seem all that borderline. It seems to defeat the purpose of a mutual IBAN when the party who is willing to test its limits is allowed do so.
- Anyway, could you clarify that you are aware the other user responded to my question and still don't think it was a violation?
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I actually don't remember anything about you two, but then I have a poor memory. Anyway, because the other editor did not respond to your comment directly, I think that this is at first glance not an interaction ban violation. Sandstein 09:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've already provided my assessment. Sandstein 11:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
What would it take?
I'm curious. You have said you're open to a "more convincing" request from TRM. I'm assuming in good faith that you sincerely mean that. Since you and some others doubt the effectiveness of what he proposed, would you be willing to work on a counter proposal? There must be a way forward here that would convince you to voluntarily unblock or reduce the length, and improve TRM's communication while not unnecessarily preventing him from doing good work. Would you be willing to help work on a better solution than just blocking him when he says something rude? The WordsmithTalk to me 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, yes, my approach is always to unblock editors as soon as I am convinced that the block is no longer needed. But I don't see myself as "working" on anything, as such. I'm an administrator, not a therapist or a social worker. It's up to The Rambling Man to convince me - and given their history of problems it won't be all that easy. Sandstein 18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, looks like I'm making the first stab then. So much of the arguments here are over what constitute "insulting or belittling", as that is extremely vague and has been abused against TRM before. Perhaps we can make it more clear.
- Looking over the diffs provided in the original request, it seems that they all seem to be examples of him making accusations about either the motives or competence of other editors. The notable exception is him accusing an admin of not following ADMINACCT, which is neither insulting nor belittling so I'm ignoring it. If he were to agree to voluntarily refrain from discussing the suspected motives or competence of other editors for a period of six months or so, would that help convince you and provide a better path forward for everybody involved here? The WordsmithTalk to me 18:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)