Wikipedia talk:Atsme's Law
I'm cranky, and you'll note that I have no influence on anything at all. So sad. If only I buttered up everyone better. [sigh]. I will now go back to playing with gasoline and my Star Wars action figures. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Playing is healthy, but whatever you do - don't drink the gasoline!! You'll turn into a cranky, firebreathing dragon!! Atsme Talk 📧 17:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish, Atsme, and Levivich: It'd be amusing if the closer referenced, "several editors referenced Atsme's Law, at least in part, towards their rationale for keeping, though it's not clear that there is consensus among all editors, or at least those favouring 'keep,' to citing that as part of their keep rationale," in their closing statement. I honestly hope Jo-Jo Eumerus or SilkTork close that discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 17:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's weird that you said that, Atsme; in reality, I was playing Skyrim (or rather, rebuilding my mod list to do so). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
|---|
|
Clarity needed edit
I realize that this a humor page, but if it's going to exist at all, it would be helpful if it would define Atsme's Law. Daask (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
What actually is Atsme's Law? edit
I came across this page by chance while delving into wikipedia. I'm used to seeing linked acronyms, essays and in-jokes whose page's assume you are part of the clique. Only with knowledge of the context can I appreciate the meaning.
Typically I arrive on ones of those pages confused but can follow the references and understand. I tried the same with this page, I clicked all the referenced threads, looked at the history surrounding the disputes. I still have absolutely no idea what Atsme's law is. Because the page is labelled a humorous essay, I spent several minutes looking into archives thinking it must have been deleted or vandalised. Is there an essay? BeardedChimp (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Atsme's Law badly needs interested editors like you to improve the way this page presents it. We look forward to seeing what you n come up with! EEng 07:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
It's the Law of Friendly! You have to click on the Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:James_J._Lambden/sandbox original discussion which I will provide here for your convenience. The Law begins with my Keep vote:
- Keep & update - would like to see this chart kept current. Atsme Talk 📧 9:02 pm, 16 February 2020, Sunday (2 years, 9 months, 23 days ago) (UTC−4)
- Not OK, due to naming subject users. This appears to be a side-logging of arbitration issues. If it were user opinion on arbitration or arbitration issues, it would be fine, but it is not. It is records of facts concerning specific users, some of it negative, and as such it fails WP:POLEMIC. The only place where I can see this being appropriate is as a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration, where it is nominally under the control of Arb clerks. It is not OK in userspace or in some random place in projectspace. Move it or delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16 pm, 16 February 2020, Sunday (2 years, 9 months, 23 days ago) (UTC−4)
- I'm afraid I don't see how this is in any way polemic, noting that, "[m]aterial that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner[,]" is stated right there. "Timely manner" is purposefully vague, which, to my mind, means that consensus at a given time on a given case decides what it is. I would oppose moving it under the control of ArbCom or the clerks, though I would support moving it to the Wikipedia: namespace where a community of editors can decide, presumably, via the talk page on what should be included or not included. As far as I can tell, and consensus here so far supports this view, it may need some editing, but not deletion. Even Atsme, who is, arguably, one of the friendliest Wikipedians says it can be kept but should be updated. Doug Mehus T·C 10:52 pm, 16 February 2020, Sunday (2 years, 9 months, 23 days ago) (UTC−4)
- I'm with you Doug: Atsme is friendly, therefore keep the page, per WP:ATSME 😂 Levivich 3:22 am, 17 February 2020, Monday (2 years, 9 months, 23 days ago) (UTC−4)
- I'm afraid I don't see how this is in any way polemic, noting that, "[m]aterial that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner[,]" is stated right there. "Timely manner" is purposefully vague, which, to my mind, means that consensus at a given time on a given case decides what it is. I would oppose moving it under the control of ArbCom or the clerks, though I would support moving it to the Wikipedia: namespace where a community of editors can decide, presumably, via the talk page on what should be included or not included. As far as I can tell, and consensus here so far supports this view, it may need some editing, but not deletion. Even Atsme, who is, arguably, one of the friendliest Wikipedians says it can be kept but should be updated. Doug Mehus T·C 10:52 pm, 16 February 2020, Sunday (2 years, 9 months, 23 days ago) (UTC−4)
- Not OK, due to naming subject users. This appears to be a side-logging of arbitration issues. If it were user opinion on arbitration or arbitration issues, it would be fine, but it is not. It is records of facts concerning specific users, some of it negative, and as such it fails WP:POLEMIC. The only place where I can see this being appropriate is as a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration, where it is nominally under the control of Arb clerks. It is not OK in userspace or in some random place in projectspace. Move it or delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16 pm, 16 February 2020, Sunday (2 years, 9 months, 23 days ago) (UTC−4)
- Woman in red made blue: User:Atsme/Atsme's Law - it is now law. Atsme Talk 📧 7:49 am, 17 February 2020, Monday (2 years, 9 months, 23 days ago) (UTC−4)
- @Levivich and Atsme: I love this—such wonderful levity (noting levity and Levivich share the same root lev) in an otherwise controversial MfD (although I'm not sure why; I truly don't see how "summar[ies] and paraphrases" in a user's userspace can be considered polemic). At any rate, I've created a shortcut for Atsme's wonderful essay/quotation. Though, we may need to take WP:ATSME to RfD for possible disambiguation if and when other future Laws, essays, and so forth are named after Atsme. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 9:54 am, 17 February 2020, Monday (2 years, 9 months, 22 days ago) (UTC−4)