User talk:Timotheus Canens/AE

Comments and suggestions

On item 2, I would not say the policies apply with extra force; they apply equally everywhere. But on AE one is of course under the bright lights, so to speak. I would suggest some phrasing which would indicate that: "your posts will be examined as well" or "there is a low tolerance for transgressions" - perhaps by beginning with "Be sure to follow the policies" or something like that rather than "Policies such as... apply with extra force" which implies the polices don't matter as much elsewhere.
Bless you, bless you for "avoid excessive commentary" under the For filers section.
Item 3 under Editors responding: Yes, and yes, and yes; but I'm wondering if there is away to make this more forceful regarding the mudslinging? But perhaps that is covered under item 2 under General.

That's all I have, which is basically one suggestion and lots of applause. Good work! Now, if we can only get people to follow this excellent advice.... KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on KC's points above:

In my view, such an interpretation would be fastidious. My reading is that the essay is not at all implying that these policies do not matter much elsewhere (of course they do), but rather that they are enforced without exception (which is true; and which can be compared with 'standard' internal pages like talk pages, where civility is not non-negotiable).
Seconded. But to add my view on "excessive commentary", I worry that the present wording gives the impression that any commentary is unhelpful. I find that well-focussed commentary is useful and must be encouraged; it is not that, but screeds of partisan babbling, that we want to urge against.
Perhaps we could replace the whole sentence with "Mudslingers will be slammed with a banhammer"… I do think it needs to be made more explicit, though :). AGK [•] 13:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be fastidious, but as its written now it is possible to misinterpret the meaning, especially given the wikilawyers who sometimes show on AE. Second suggestion for clarifying this: replace "apply at" (inaccurate) with "are enforced at". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are enforced at might work better than apply at, certainly, and seems acceptable to me. You make a good point about the wikilawyering. AGK [•] 10:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, KC. T. Canens (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. I'd add a note about the importance of clarity and concision, considering that reviewing admins are volunteers. I've been meaning to work on a similar essay from the admin's perspective.--Tznkai (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Very often, I'll not bother with a thread that's too unwieldy, because I simply can't be bothered. I genuinely think that some participants at AE are deliberately making threads unwieldy, so as to make it go stale before any sysop can be bothered reading it all. AGK [•] 10:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case sometimes. T. Canens (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Uninvolved" editors

I added this section, if that's all right with you. I think it would be useful to fill it out (though it is of course your essay and you should feel free to remove it). There is often a lot of extraneous commentary along the lines of "X is great; he would never insult anyone, and if he did, it's only because those editors were super abusive" or similarly in an opposite sense. That oftentimes devolves into bickering and/or tl;dr posts that only make the reports sit there for a longer time. NW (Talk) 13:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should impose a maximum word count on all submissions to AE, akin to that enforced at RFAR. Too many requests are so unwieldy that no administrator will have the motivation to consider it. AGK [•] 13:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably add verbiage including a reminder that they should confine their comments to the AE request; this is not an opportunity to argue content, policy, or personal disputes with either the alleged transgressor or the filing party. We might want to include a statement that we reserve the right to remove posts which are not about the AE. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest NW's new section -- "For other editors who wish to comment" -- have one word in it: Don't. But seriously, KC's suggestion is good. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed :P. AGK [•] 10:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was thinking about adding such a section myself actually, so I definitely won't be removing it any time soon...:) T. Canens (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other commenters

Overall, I like this essay. It would be good to provide more advice to others who wish to comment. Some ideas:

If you often participate in the topic area, and find yourself working alongside this editor (or opposed to him) it is helpful if you will mention that fact.
If you identify yourself as uninvolved, please explain what you mean by that.

EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps "identify whether you are involved or uninvolved", possibly with qualifiers, such as involved to what extent, or on which side of any content debate you have been on? IOW, disclose any potential interest. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that distinction (and there's a lot of gray area between the two) really useful? I myself find the involved/uninvolved label a little pointless in most cases, especially in areas I'm somewhat familiar with, but people like to argue over it. T. Canens (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - people sometimes label others as "involved" with third editor when they both edited a different article together 6 months ago; and often describe themselves as "uninvolved" when both parties are in the top 10 contributors of the article, but didn't both get into this particular dispute. As TC says, people like to argue about this, and that is Yet More Pointless Text so far as I can see. It might be best if we don't encourage that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Labels such as "involved" or "uninvolved" are not really useful because the logic and evidence may not be transparent. A succinct description of an editor's involvement, if any, would be much better. Jehochman ^Talk 13:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

This needs a better name than "AE" - what suggestions do you all have? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration enforcement" (thinking big)
"Advice for arbitration enforcement"
"Arbitration enforcement: advice and help"

I think the essay is definitely good enough that we want to publicize it as well as possible. So the first one makes the most sense to me, though we should probably ask the Committee first. NW (Talk) 14:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it as "AE" while it is in my userspace, just because it's shorter

. Now, if this ever gets moved into project space, we can find a better name then...... T. Canens (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice

So what happens if Editor A files a RfE against Editor B, but Editor C believes there are more serious issues with Editor A? Should Editor C bring this up at the existing RfE? Or should Editor C file a separate RfE against Editor A? If the latter, how does Editor C deal with the possiblity of violating "Never, never, never, never file a retaliatory request" by proxy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]