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.
Hi, admittedly because I am not an Admin, I did not have the ability to look at previous versions of this article to see why it was deleted prior to the creation of the most recent version. However I was trying to establish WP:Notability via that the subject is considered a crossover performer with work as a mainstream (non-Adult industry) model and fitness competitor. I referenced IAFd.com because its the Adult industry standard for performer information as well as the subject's Twitter account because she commented directly on her use of her alias for mainstream work and subsequently why she decided to stop using it.
There are other references available to cite regarding her mainstream work, but I honestly thought I'd have more time to add them and expand the article. The deletion process happened so fast, the article was gone before I even knew that it had been nominated.
If you would provide copies of the previous articles and the most recent version, I'm willing to work on creating an article that meets Notability and BLP guidelines, hopefully to your satisfaction. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK, userfied at User:Scalhotrod/Janet Mason. Sandstein 20:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you! In your opinion, what would you say this article needs most? I'd like to think that you provided me access on the basis that you feel there is something of merit in the subject matter, so the benefit of your experience, input, and insight is important to me. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, actually I have no opinion about the merits here, just routinely giving you the opportunity to salvage the article. What it would need is references to substantial coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Right now it doesn't even have any reliable sources, so per WP:BLP I'll have to re-delete it in a week or so if it is not improved. Sandstein 14:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Is AVN (Adult Video News) considered a WP:RS? I know of sources for her mainstream work, but I have to compile those. I have the same question regarding IAFD.com, its considered the standard reference for the Adult industry similar to how IMDb.com is used. Also, any particular problems with PORNBIO? According to information I've found, she qualifies under all three categories. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with these websites, but user-published content such as IMDB is not considered reliable. If there are reliable sources for meeting the topic-specific notability criteria, that would work also, but such determinations are often controversial, so in that case I recommend that you submit the improved article to WP:DRV for review. Sandstein 13:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
IMDb.com is not a user published site. It's a for-profit site that is owned by Amazon.com. Everything is fact checked against known sources by paid staff. Its essentially the same with IAFD.com, anyone can submit a change, but it has to be reviewed before its made live. Unlike WP, user made changes don't "go live" immediately. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- My understanding is that there is a longstanding consensus among Wikipedia editors that IMDB is not a reliable source because it is user-edited. Sandstein 15:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
AE request
Please refer to this. Evidence of long-term cross-wiki and off-project harassment may not be best suited to AE, but I sincerely thought that it should be known that there are issues which are directly (even if not overtly) related to the current request. If these issues are not best dealt with at AE, then would you be amenable to my suggestion at that diff above. That being have the iban breach dealt with at the AE, I strike everything not related to that breach and consider filing a request in future at WP:RFAR to have the larger and longer-terms issues dealt with. You stated that the off-this project diffs are outside the scope of this project's dispute resolution process -- this may hold true for WP:AE, but it does not hold true for Arbcom, who are able to look at off-project harassment, and consider that as part of disputes on this project. This would be a better solution yes?
I would also appreciate it if you could please allow a second or third or fourth set of eyes have a look at the request in question, after you consider the above, and before you act unilaterally on the AE request. The more uninvolved admin eyes that look at an issue, the better.
I know that we have to lessen bullshit on this project, and I simply want to be left alone by editors and get down to the business of what we are here to do. Russavia (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and removed, with my apologies, what you deem to be unnecessary for this AE request. I am sincere in this, and I sincerely hope you will take this into overall consideration with your comments, but my request for more eyes stands if you don't mind? Russavia (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your removal of parts of your statement is noted and, I think, appropriate. It is up to you whether you want to file a request for arbitration, but as far as I know the Committee normally does not consider off-project conduct to fall within its remit. As to additional admin opinions, I welcome them if they are added soon, but I feel that requests of this sort (reflecting longstanding feuds between groups of editors) should normally be closed as quickly as possible to prevent them from escalating uncontrollably and spawning off ever more sub-disputes. Sandstein 11:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for comments. In relation to Arbcom, they do indeed consider off-project conduct and have a long history of such -- the EEML case itself is one such example; although that clearly had on-project consequences. There are other instances where off-project conduct has resulted in indefinite blocks on this project in the past. In regards to your comments "We will still need to address the violation of Russavia's interaction ban that occurred by him raising these other issues here in the first place." could I ask that you not take any action against myself in this regard. Firstly, it has been a long time since I've had to use AE (for crying out loud, it would be great if we didn't have to require AE in the first place), and I actually was not aware that on-this-project-only diffs were only required. Now I know of course. Also, I took your comments regarding me not providing diffs as an indirect instruction to provide those links, whether they be off-or-on project. This should be taken into consideration, and no action should be taken against myself, except for perhaps a reminder to remember in future only to post overtly relevant diffs to an AE report, and deal with other issues elsewhere, such as at Arbcom. Russavia (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your removal of parts of your statement is noted and, I think, appropriate. It is up to you whether you want to file a request for arbitration, but as far as I know the Committee normally does not consider off-project conduct to fall within its remit. As to additional admin opinions, I welcome them if they are added soon, but I feel that requests of this sort (reflecting longstanding feuds between groups of editors) should normally be closed as quickly as possible to prevent them from escalating uncontrollably and spawning off ever more sub-disputes. Sandstein 11:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough AE case
Hi Sandstein. Thanks as always for your hard work at AE. This is just to let you know that in the Rich Farmbrough request you wrote, "He obtained the first, two-week block for violating a similar community restriction in November 2013." I am guessing that should be November 2012 instead? I see he was blocked for violating editing restrictions in both November 2011 and November 2012, so it's probably best to be clear about which one it is. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I fixed that. I meant to write 2012. Sandstein 05:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Sandstein, I think you closed this prematurely. I had intended to note that I think it is very far from clear that this was done using automation; I find it very easy to mess up the single quotes in just this manner using entirely manual processes. Additionally, in determining the length of the block, you appear to be using the fact that he disagrees with the restriction against him, which doesn't make sense or seem reasonable. I would have written earlier, but I took your first comment there as an appeal to wait (I think now that I misread you). In any case, I think it would be best to leave this open a bit longer for more discussion. Thank you, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I disagree. Even if one assumes the first edit I mentioned in the closure was not automated (although the decision directs us to consider automated any edits that reasonably appear as such), there is still the matter of the other two. I also take into account that not even Rich Farmbrough himself made the argument that the edits were not automated.
In determining the length of the block, I didn't take into account Rich Farmbrough's disagreement with the restriction, as such (everyone is free to disagree), but rather the fact that the way how he expressed his disagreement (together with his conduct) indicates that he has no intention of complying with the restriction. It would have been much different, for example, if he had said that he finds the sanction idiotic but will comply with it henceforth. If you still disagree with the block, I recommend that you voice your concerns in the discussion about an appeal, if any, or in the still-open clarification request, where arbitrators can react to it if they share your assessment. Sandstein 05:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- The clarification request doesn't seem relevant. I also have a problem with a 1 year block when so little, if any, harm is being done. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- The length of the block is a reflection on the lack of change since the last block for the same issue, which was
one monthtwo months in length and just expired. The question whether harm is being done was already answered by arbcom when they closed the case. It's up to Rich to change his editing accordingly, not up to admins at AE to re-justify the remedies that arbcom has already passed. R.F. appealed the AE case before his previous block, and arbcom did not modify the remedies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)- Two months actually. Also: Whether the specific edits at issue are harmful or not does not really matter. What matters is that the Arbitration Committee has made a binding decision that any and all automated edits by Rich Farmbrough are prohibited. That's what AE is tasked with enforcing. As concerns the block duration: All blocks should be preventative, not punitive. That's why I think it is not appropriate to consider the harm caused by the specific edits at issue and to set the block duration accordingly - that would be a punitive approach: "the punishment should fit the crime". Rather, the block should last as long as it is needed to prevent the undesired behavior - in this case, automated editing. In this case, Rich Farmbrough has made it clear through his statements and his conduct that he does not intend to comply with the restriction. In principle, therefore, the block should last indefinitely - that is, not infinitely, but until Rich Farmbrough convincingly agrees to abide by the restriction. But the enforcement provision only allows blocks up to a year, so, that's the closest possible approximation. Of course, the block does not need to actually last for the full year: if Rich Farmbrough convinces me that he understands that he must unconditionally observe all of the restrictions that apply to him, and that he intends to do so in the future, I'll unblock him at once. However, given his long history of noncompliance, he'd really have to be quite convincing. Sandstein 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure; I realized this was essentially what you were thinking when you made the block. I disagree, still, that AE should interpret anything arbcom says to mean that we administrators at AE should be blocking anyone for a year when no (or so very little) harm is being done. It isn't the automated editing itself that is harmful/disruptive, and if there is no harm being done here then the 1 year block does not prevent any problems. So in that sense it is neither punitive nor preventative! Carl: I'm somewhat familiar with the original case, and I don't think that the kinds of edits considered here were what was considered so harmful. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, in that case, what you disagree with is the underlying decision of the Arbitration Committee to consider all automated editing of whatever nature by Rich Farmbrough to be harmful, and to ban all such editing. That is certainly an opinion that many people seem to share (I am indifferent about the matter), but in that case you should not work in Arbitration Enforcement. Because Arbitration Committee decisions are binding, AE admins in particular have no authority to question the Committee's decisions; they must limit themselves to executing the decisions. Sandstein 15:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I do think it can potentially lead to undesired consequences, although my understanding (like I told Carl I'm only somewhat familiar with the original case) is that it is designed to prevent controversial mass editing by RF's bots/etc, which seems like a reasonable goal. I don't have any problem with the committee responding to disputes about mass editing. But even aside from that, AE admins wouldn't have needed to deviate from Arbitration Committee instructions to avoid giving a 1 year block in this case, since I don't think there's any compelling reason to believe these edits were likely automated. Additionally, the Enforcement By block section says "may be blocked..." which I can't read any other way than to imply that some discretion is given to administrators to not block or to block for a shorter period when, for example, the infraction was so exceedingly minor or when there is no or very little disruption. I did want to respond here to that point you made, but other than that I'm happy to leave this to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests (or any appeal by RF) per your note below. Thanks; ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, in that case, what you disagree with is the underlying decision of the Arbitration Committee to consider all automated editing of whatever nature by Rich Farmbrough to be harmful, and to ban all such editing. That is certainly an opinion that many people seem to share (I am indifferent about the matter), but in that case you should not work in Arbitration Enforcement. Because Arbitration Committee decisions are binding, AE admins in particular have no authority to question the Committee's decisions; they must limit themselves to executing the decisions. Sandstein 15:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure; I realized this was essentially what you were thinking when you made the block. I disagree, still, that AE should interpret anything arbcom says to mean that we administrators at AE should be blocking anyone for a year when no (or so very little) harm is being done. It isn't the automated editing itself that is harmful/disruptive, and if there is no harm being done here then the 1 year block does not prevent any problems. So in that sense it is neither punitive nor preventative! Carl: I'm somewhat familiar with the original case, and I don't think that the kinds of edits considered here were what was considered so harmful. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Two months actually. Also: Whether the specific edits at issue are harmful or not does not really matter. What matters is that the Arbitration Committee has made a binding decision that any and all automated edits by Rich Farmbrough are prohibited. That's what AE is tasked with enforcing. As concerns the block duration: All blocks should be preventative, not punitive. That's why I think it is not appropriate to consider the harm caused by the specific edits at issue and to set the block duration accordingly - that would be a punitive approach: "the punishment should fit the crime". Rather, the block should last as long as it is needed to prevent the undesired behavior - in this case, automated editing. In this case, Rich Farmbrough has made it clear through his statements and his conduct that he does not intend to comply with the restriction. In principle, therefore, the block should last indefinitely - that is, not infinitely, but until Rich Farmbrough convincingly agrees to abide by the restriction. But the enforcement provision only allows blocks up to a year, so, that's the closest possible approximation. Of course, the block does not need to actually last for the full year: if Rich Farmbrough convinces me that he understands that he must unconditionally observe all of the restrictions that apply to him, and that he intends to do so in the future, I'll unblock him at once. However, given his long history of noncompliance, he'd really have to be quite convincing. Sandstein 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- The length of the block is a reflection on the lack of change since the last block for the same issue, which was
- The clarification request doesn't seem relevant. I also have a problem with a 1 year block when so little, if any, harm is being done. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's fair to characterize what appears to be a simple find-and-replace operation as "automated", as you did here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Find and replace is automation (it produces the effect of many keystrokes with one or few keystrokes). It is notably automation in the very broad sense of the restriction, which prohibits "any automation whatsoever". For clarity, the restriction directs Rich Farmbrough "to make only completely manual edits (i.e. by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)". Using find and replace is a violation of that instruction. Sandstein 13:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have the same concern as Sarek. There is a search and replace function in the toolbar, so he could easily have hit the edit button and then used search and replace. If there was a pattern of this over any more than one page, sure, but as far as I can see that was not the case. Jenks24 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- The restriction is "to make only completely manual edits (i.e. by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)". That excludes the use of find and replace. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Utter nonsense, and you both know it. Search and replace is not automation and your ludicrous definition does not stand scrutiny. If automation were "it produces the effect of many keystrokes with one or few keystrokes", then you'd have blocked Rich for signing his posts with 4 ~. If that's the best you can come up with, it's time you took a break from doing work that you're clearly not suited for. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- The remedy I quoted did not mention the word "automation" at all, and that was intentional. The question is only whether a reasonable admin could think that R.F. made his edits in a way other than by manually typing them into the edit box. The committee made it clear to R.F. what was expected. R.F. has simply refused to follow the remedies, and instead has tried to stretch the bounds. The solution, as Sandstein has said, is for R.F. to make a convincing case that he would follow the restriction if unblocked - with no boundary-pushing, search-and-replace, etc., just manual editing in the normal sense. However, each time his blocks have expired, R.F. has instead tried to divert blame elsewhere [1], claim his edits are useful [2], and generally avoid taking responsibility for not following the remedies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Now CBM, you and I and many of the others here all know that the way the Arbcom ruling is written it is so open to interpretation that it leaves nearly an unending number of interpretations. None of which in Rich's favor. I would also submit that as long as there is no interaction ban between Fram and Rich, Fram will continue to hound Rich's edits and submit AE threads whenever there is the slightest hint of something Rich can be blocked for. Fram has had a vendetta for Rich for years. Its time for it to stop. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- I can understand that the wording of the automation ban was probably deliberately wide to stop potential disruption, but it was cast so wide that it makes a mockery of arbcom or anyone trying to enforce it in suc a draconian fashion. Rich is one of the foremost experts of automation here on wikipedia, and instead of setting up the ban to end disruption in addition to making the most use of his talents, you punish him from making even S&Rs. If 'Search and replace' is automation, then so is copy and paste, because by doing so, you by definition "produce the effect of many keystrokes with one or few keystrokes". pfff. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Now CBM, you and I and many of the others here all know that the way the Arbcom ruling is written it is so open to interpretation that it leaves nearly an unending number of interpretations. None of which in Rich's favor. I would also submit that as long as there is no interaction ban between Fram and Rich, Fram will continue to hound Rich's edits and submit AE threads whenever there is the slightest hint of something Rich can be blocked for. Fram has had a vendetta for Rich for years. Its time for it to stop. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- The remedy I quoted did not mention the word "automation" at all, and that was intentional. The question is only whether a reasonable admin could think that R.F. made his edits in a way other than by manually typing them into the edit box. The committee made it clear to R.F. what was expected. R.F. has simply refused to follow the remedies, and instead has tried to stretch the bounds. The solution, as Sandstein has said, is for R.F. to make a convincing case that he would follow the restriction if unblocked - with no boundary-pushing, search-and-replace, etc., just manual editing in the normal sense. However, each time his blocks have expired, R.F. has instead tried to divert blame elsewhere [1], claim his edits are useful [2], and generally avoid taking responsibility for not following the remedies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Utter nonsense, and you both know it. Search and replace is not automation and your ludicrous definition does not stand scrutiny. If automation were "it produces the effect of many keystrokes with one or few keystrokes", then you'd have blocked Rich for signing his posts with 4 ~. If that's the best you can come up with, it's time you took a break from doing work that you're clearly not suited for. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- The restriction is "to make only completely manual edits (i.e. by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window)". That excludes the use of find and replace. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have the same concern as Sarek. There is a search and replace function in the toolbar, so he could easily have hit the edit button and then used search and replace. If there was a pattern of this over any more than one page, sure, but as far as I can see that was not the case. Jenks24 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, that I don't find the claim about search and replace to be technically relevant. Unscintillating (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sandstein, please understand I know that off-wiki evidence cannot be admitted into an AE request, but based on a conversation Rich and I had, he all but admitted (I think he may have also admitted outright) violating his topic ban, and he keeps gripping at straws saying that it's okay because it wasn't really automated, just find and replace, oh wait it was automated but they were good edits in good faith, oh wait I know I'm violating my ban but they're good edits so it's okay, etc. I fully support your block, and was just coming to mention that I may be able to discuss this more in private with either the Arbitration Committee if they ask, or possibly you. Thanks for doing the dirty work at AE btw, I've seen nothing but bad about you for just doing hard work. By the way, I know you probably won't care, but you have 2-3 threads about you on WO now, e-mail me for the links if you really care. Thanks again. gwickwiretalkediting 00:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the positive feedback. I don't think that anybody needs to rely on hearsay evidence here. What matters under the wording of the remedy is that the edits look like the result of automation; accordingly they are treated as such. ("For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.") Therefore we don't need to hear evidence about how, in detail, the edits were in fact made. Additionally, I think that the fact that Rich Farmbrough has not disputed (as far as I know) that the edits were automated is telling enough. Sandstein 11:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sandstein, please understand I know that off-wiki evidence cannot be admitted into an AE request, but based on a conversation Rich and I had, he all but admitted (I think he may have also admitted outright) violating his topic ban, and he keeps gripping at straws saying that it's okay because it wasn't really automated, just find and replace, oh wait it was automated but they were good edits in good faith, oh wait I know I'm violating my ban but they're good edits so it's okay, etc. I fully support your block, and was just coming to mention that I may be able to discuss this more in private with either the Arbitration Committee if they ask, or possibly you. Thanks for doing the dirty work at AE btw, I've seen nothing but bad about you for just doing hard work. By the way, I know you probably won't care, but you have 2-3 threads about you on WO now, e-mail me for the links if you really care. Thanks again. gwickwiretalkediting 00:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
You can now add a forth editor to the list of those who think this 1 year block is both stupid and short sighted. There is absolutely nothing preventative in blocking a long term editor for what amounts to frivolous edits. Nothing. It's purely punitive and the sooner some level heads realize that the better. Its not bad enough the community has allowed Fram to pursue this unending vendetta. Its too bad that the community continues to allow the sole admin who is the one man show running AE to allow time for comments and always leans towards the extreme end of the spectrum when doling out punishments. Its not enough that we have banned Rich from bots and automated editing costing the pedia tens of thousands of useful edits a month. But we have to add insult to injury and salt to the wound to take a frivolous AE thread from a long involved "admin" and turn it into a 1 year block. For what, a few edits. Absolutely ridiculous. I would also note that Sandstein tried previously to block Rich for a year when he imposed the last frivolous block but only reduced it because it lacked community support even then. It is rarely if ever necessary to impose a 1 year block. Even then it shoudl never be for a violation such as the one Rich is being accused of. A one year block should be reserved for Copyright violators, vandals and the like. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Since Rich has been banned from automation, I've found it nearly impossible to get any automated task done that I can't do myself. Now he's banned for his edits "looking like" automation. It's a stupid guideline, and I hope some admin that's a bit more level-headed reverts it. Why is it that idiots and vandals are coddled, while the most productive users are punished? — kwami (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your not the only one. A lot of bot ops and potential botops think twice before starting a bot. I have talked with several editors who want too but are afraid if they make mistakes that the zero defect mentality will get them banned. This is a pretty detrimental second level effect to blocking this "troublemaker". KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- If the bot operators can't be bothered to either 1) do good software engineering (individually or in collaboration) before releasing a tool, or 2) respond with appropriate humility and ownership of problems when things go wrong, then the project is probably better off without their contributions in the way of automated editing. The entire notion of bot operators as "most productive" is ludicrous--they may make bazillions of tiny changes, but none of them will ever correct errors of fact. The real business of Wikipedia is writing and sourcing articles, and bots can't do that. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- The last sentence in the comment above rather broad-brushes all non-content editing as 'worthless', but perhaps JC would care to qualify/clarify what he said above. Many WP editors here only do work that does not involve writing text and sourcing the story, and would no doubt be upset to hear a former arbcom member talk in such a dismissive fashion about what they do. IMHO, any respectable news editor will tell you that there's much more to journalism than writing words (the same would apply to publishing). I'm sure JC would be just as disdainful (about his 'newspaper', in the broadest sense) if he found his news articles with no punctuation, full of spelling mistakes, or had no bolded headings or paragraph breaks. In addition to writing text, checking facts, important work also includes removing the irrelevant tangential or unsuitable material; then there's also spell-checking, formatting. Much of the latter is 'automated' to a lesser or greater extent nowadays in Wikipedia and elsewhere. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- The primary problem with that argument JClemens is that we aren't talking about bots here. We are talking about a block made purely off of the suggestion that it might be. There isn't a shred of evidence to prove it other than a few links presented by an involved editor/admin that has been pushing for Rich to get blocked for years. I also should point out that few bots do actual edits to articles anymore, a testament to actions like this against Rich that show that editing to articles is dangerous to ones wiki career. Most bots do stuff like maintenance to AFC's, RFA's, count article stats and the like. Very few do anything to articles anymore. There are a couple that do extremely minor things like dating maintenance tags but even that doesn't really improve the article, I count that as falling into paving a cowpath territory. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Working as a gnome in this place, I notice that there are different warlords squatting many different patches. They react strongly when any transversal action (one that crosses over different topic areas), it becomes mighty difficult not to tread on these warlords' turves. You are firmly based on global consensus, they will cite local consensus, and try and scold or intimidate you because 'we always do things this way (and not your way) around here'. Life's becoming increasingly frustrating for that reason. But this is one big digression. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 13:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm... let's see... The chutzpah of one editor I've blocked for socking to do "gnomish" work that he was supposed to answer a complaint about before returning to editing questioning my take on the value of similar gnomish work by another is just... words fail me. However, yes, broadly construed, edits that mess with the presentation of information are non-missional: they neither add to knowledge, nor collect it here. To the extent that gnomish or bot work can be done without distracting from the main mission of Wikipedia, it's fine--but that's not to say that it's "valuable" in the same sense that adding a single reference to a pop culture article is valuable. We've had serial problems with editors who don't get that, to one degree or another: you, Rich, Betacommand... Bot owners should not stir up trouble, they should be egoless implementers of the community's will. To the extent that their wide-scale automation is contested by editors in good standing, it should never have been done in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I understand the perspective. So can you explain what part of the edits Rich just did were automated? Or were done from a bot? or that warranted a one year block? I can't and I think most reasonable people can't either. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm... let's see... The chutzpah of one editor I've blocked for socking to do "gnomish" work that he was supposed to answer a complaint about before returning to editing questioning my take on the value of similar gnomish work by another is just... words fail me. However, yes, broadly construed, edits that mess with the presentation of information are non-missional: they neither add to knowledge, nor collect it here. To the extent that gnomish or bot work can be done without distracting from the main mission of Wikipedia, it's fine--but that's not to say that it's "valuable" in the same sense that adding a single reference to a pop culture article is valuable. We've had serial problems with editors who don't get that, to one degree or another: you, Rich, Betacommand... Bot owners should not stir up trouble, they should be egoless implementers of the community's will. To the extent that their wide-scale automation is contested by editors in good standing, it should never have been done in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Working as a gnome in this place, I notice that there are different warlords squatting many different patches. They react strongly when any transversal action (one that crosses over different topic areas), it becomes mighty difficult not to tread on these warlords' turves. You are firmly based on global consensus, they will cite local consensus, and try and scold or intimidate you because 'we always do things this way (and not your way) around here'. Life's becoming increasingly frustrating for that reason. But this is one big digression. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 13:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- The primary problem with that argument JClemens is that we aren't talking about bots here. We are talking about a block made purely off of the suggestion that it might be. There isn't a shred of evidence to prove it other than a few links presented by an involved editor/admin that has been pushing for Rich to get blocked for years. I also should point out that few bots do actual edits to articles anymore, a testament to actions like this against Rich that show that editing to articles is dangerous to ones wiki career. Most bots do stuff like maintenance to AFC's, RFA's, count article stats and the like. Very few do anything to articles anymore. There are a couple that do extremely minor things like dating maintenance tags but even that doesn't really improve the article, I count that as falling into paving a cowpath territory. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- The last sentence in the comment above rather broad-brushes all non-content editing as 'worthless', but perhaps JC would care to qualify/clarify what he said above. Many WP editors here only do work that does not involve writing text and sourcing the story, and would no doubt be upset to hear a former arbcom member talk in such a dismissive fashion about what they do. IMHO, any respectable news editor will tell you that there's much more to journalism than writing words (the same would apply to publishing). I'm sure JC would be just as disdainful (about his 'newspaper', in the broadest sense) if he found his news articles with no punctuation, full of spelling mistakes, or had no bolded headings or paragraph breaks. In addition to writing text, checking facts, important work also includes removing the irrelevant tangential or unsuitable material; then there's also spell-checking, formatting. Much of the latter is 'automated' to a lesser or greater extent nowadays in Wikipedia and elsewhere. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- If the bot operators can't be bothered to either 1) do good software engineering (individually or in collaboration) before releasing a tool, or 2) respond with appropriate humility and ownership of problems when things go wrong, then the project is probably better off without their contributions in the way of automated editing. The entire notion of bot operators as "most productive" is ludicrous--they may make bazillions of tiny changes, but none of them will ever correct errors of fact. The real business of Wikipedia is writing and sourcing articles, and bots can't do that. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your not the only one. A lot of bot ops and potential botops think twice before starting a bot. I have talked with several editors who want too but are afraid if they make mistakes that the zero defect mentality will get them banned. This is a pretty detrimental second level effect to blocking this "troublemaker". KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
May I please ask all of you, if you are interested in discussing this case with each other, to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests? I would like this user talk page to be focused on issues that people wish to discuss with me in particular, and I think that I've said all that I need to about this case. Sandstein 15:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- That seems like a reasonable way to ensure a lot less comments. Only a handful of us watch that page, a couple hundred watch this one. So moving it there essentially scuttles the conversation so that you don't have to talk about it. The problem with that is that it needs to be discussed. It was a bad decision, with an extreme punishment, for frivolous reasons and the editor admin that submitted it is Involved and has been trying to block Rich for years. How else would he notice these edits to a fairly obscure topic within a couple days of Rich being unblocked. Because he was digging for something. Its only made worse because you allowed him to manipulate you into performing the block. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Standard offer
Hi. If you object to my mention of your name in this context on my page, I will remove it. Bishonen | talk 11:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC).
- Thanks for the notice, I've no objection. Sandstein 12:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
May I ask a favor, please?
Hi Sandstein. Thanks for your dedication to the project. I would like to ask a favor. Would you consider unhatting the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough to allow for community input. please? Thanks. It's fine if the answer is "no". I'd just like to know if you would consider it. Thanks. To everybody else watching this page, please let's try to be orderly and civil and have a minimum of drama. Thanks. 64.40.54.134 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC) my contribs for those unwilling to WP:AGF.
- Hi. Sorry, but AE is not a forum for community discussion; rather, it is an administrative noticeboard dedicated to processing enforcement requests. The place for any associated discussion is the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, where it appears a long discussion is already underway. (Not that I think that it's a particularly useful discussion, though: as an arbitrator mentioned there, the place to discuss any concerns about the decision would be an appeal by the sanctioned editor.) I therefore refrain from unarchiving the enforcement request thread. Regards, Sandstein 15:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for the reply. 64.40.54.134 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Please cease all activities on the Volunteer Marek AE report
As per this and this, I must insist that you cease all activity on the Volunteer Marek AE report immediately, because you are grossly overstepping your authority as an admin in making decisions of the Arbitration Committee null and void. At this AE report you wrote:
Several people argue that the sanction should not be enforced, or at any rate not with a lengthy block, because the edit was harmless or beneficial. That may well be so. However, in the context of enforcement, all that matters is that edits of this specific type by this specific editor have been determined by the body with the authority to do so – the Arbitration Committee – to be detrimental. That's the point of any ban on Wikipedia: it forbids all edits (or all of a certain type), no matter what the merits of any individual edit are – see WP:BAN. And I trust the collective judgment of the Arbitration Committee in determining the scope of bans like this... well, certainly not blindly, but much more than that of any individual editor who shows up here. So, please address any objections against the scope of the ban, or against the length of the sanctions contemplated, to the Committee members who wrote that ban.
You are in essence objecting to the in-place interaction ban that Volunteer Marek has with myself, and your unilateral decision to null and void that interaction ban is in direct contravention with this amendment request. Furthermore your further contribution to the null and voiding of this interaction ban by stating that ""The editors sanctioned by name in this decision [are interaction-banned]" is no longer valid because the topic ban was lifted, is not only in direct contravention to the abovementioned amendment request, but also defies a basic grasp of the meaning of the EEML interaction ban sanction in the first place. Volunteer Marek (as Radeksz) was clearly sanctioned by name in the EEML case; that he was sanctioned with a topic ban under a separate sanction, and later had the sanction of a topic ban lifted, does not negate the fact that he was still "sanctioned by name".
Volunteer Marek's claim that he was not aware that the topic ban was still in place is entirely dubious. The amendment request was clearly stated as being between Nug and myself; that VM argued for the lifting of the interaction ban as it pertains to all affected editors is entirely his opinion. At no stage did the Committee consider lifting the interaction ban, and I fail to see how one could believe that the interaction ban would no longer apply to them when they were never notified by the committee of the amendment, and it certainly wasn't logged as such. That his belief was that the interaction ban didn't apply to him is BS pure and simple. this demonstrates that another editor with whom there is an interaction ban did not believe my being blocked, etc from this project negated the interaction ban.
Furthermore, there are other issues that I am going to be raising at the clarification request which involve yourself, and which I believe you deserve to be aware of -- I am certain that you don't appreciate being used a tool by other editors. Your opinions will soon change, I am sure! Please wait for me to post the clarification request. Thanks. Russavia (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, whether Volunteer Marek's interaction ban is still active is a matter of the interpretation of the respective remedy. Interpreting remedies is the job of enforcing administrators. One can in good faith favor either interpretation, as arbitrator AGK has also noted. But if I were you, then I wouldn't be arguing so strongly in favor of the interpretation that the interaction ban is still active. Because in that case your own interaction ban would also (clearly) be active, and you arguably violated it by making various clearly unactionable allegations about offproject conduct by Volunteer Marek in your enforcement request. The result would probably be lengthy enforcement blocks for both of you.
As to your announced clarification request, I'm unclear as to what it is to accomplish, and I am not optimistic that it would help with the speedy or satisfactory resolution of this matter. But I must ask that you make any statements that may be relevant to the outcome of the AE request at WP:AE, not here and not elsewhere, because your statements may not be taken into account if they are made off WP:AE. I'll wait until the other admins who have commented about your request have had an opportunity to make additional comments, and then I'll close your request (or any of my colleagues may close it). If by that time you have already submitted a clarification request, I'll instead ask the arbitrators to indicate whether the processing of the AE request should be stayed pending the disposition of your clarification request. Sandstein 19:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I am telling you that I am going to be making a clarification request with additional information which even you don't know about, that will essentially do one of two things -- 1) I will be indeffed from this project entirely or 2) there will be some serious changes on this project. But in relation to your interpretation of remedies, I am now demanding that you cease with this case as of now. I have asked for 24 hours -- in order for me to place the information at both the request and with Arbcom. It affects both areas simultaneously. And by the way, I know you are a lawyer and you like to be officious and hard-arsed on editors, but perhaps for once instead of treating AE as your own personal legal playground where you essentially singularly act as a virtual judge, jury and executioner, and pretend like this project is all about legal laws and doctrines (rather than common bloody sense) you might ask how exactly you (and AE in general) are being used a mere tool. So perhaps just give me the space to either hang the noose around my own neck, or simply read what I will have to say. Thank you. Russavia (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- I decline to wait 24 hours, because what you write about your announced clarification request makes me suspect that it will consist of more unverifiable and/or unactionable allegations of offwiki misconduct by others, which would very likely only make this already dismal case even more acrimonious and complicated. So – please don't do that. My job, as I understand it, is to execute the decisions of the Arbitration Committee, not to help editors commit "suicide by drama". Also, if what you want to say is relevant to the outcome of the AE request, then you should say it now, at WP:AE, or in an appeal against any sanction after the request is closed. If what you want to say is not relevant to the outcome of the AE request, then you could have said it at any time previously, and there is no particular reason for me to wait for you to say it now. Sandstein 20:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)