| Revision as of 15:36, 9 December 2006 edit72.91.169.22 (talk) →Thatcher131← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,299 edits →Egad: new section Is there a clerk aroundTag: New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{Arbcom-talk}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| {{shortcut|] or ]}} | |||
| |counter = 20 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="270px" | |||
| |- | |||
| !align="center"|]<br/>] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == How can I get an Arbcom to recuse himself if he refuses?== | |||
| How can I get an Arbcom to recuse himself if he refuses? Were do I go to file this? ] (]) 02:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you mean an admin, or an arbitrator? If you mean an admin, recuse from what? ] 02:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Motion 2b == | |||
| ::He means arbitrator, and you can't force an arbitrator to recuse, it's a personal decision. In theory, you can appeal to Jimbo, who it the ultimate authority, and can overrule an arbitrator or even the whole arbitration committee. You could also contact other arbitrators and ask them to weigh in on the workshop page. Keep in mind that Fred's proposals are not addressing Seabhcan's side of the dispute because Seabhcan is out of town and has not presented evidence. Significant new proposals may be added next week after Seabhcan presents his evidence. Also, there have been cases where's Fred's proposals are voted down and new proposals added by the other arbitrators in the voting stage. ] 02:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Can an administrator use this to grant more words or remove the word limit from certain discussions? I'm trying to avoid making this another whole thing, so if there's general agreement on it I'd prefer not to open another ARCA. Pinging {{ping|Chess|Selfstudier}} who's discussion made me think of this. ] (]) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You have made a motion for me to recuse. I have considered the matter but have found no basis for recusal and responded giving the reasons I find this so. I have placed the the motion on /Proposed decision, if the motion passes, I will recuse. ] 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you Newyorkbrad, Thatcher131, and Fred Bauder for your time. Have a nice evening. It is chilly for this part of the country tonight--65 F. Nice to be inside. Brrr....] (]) 06:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Four ''net'' votes for acceptance - where did that come from? == | |||
| :@] I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? == | |||
| For quite a while – as long as I can remember – the threshold for the acceptance of a case for Arbitration was four Accept votes. Someone brought to my attention that the header on ] was recently changed to state that | |||
| :''Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes.'' | |||
| The ] was also changed to reflect this (with the edit summary ). | |||
| There are many discussions that began before the word limit motion passed. Does the word limit only apply to new discussions, or does it apply to older ones as well? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| A quick glance through ] and ] doesn't reveal a discussion of or explanation for this change. Trawling through the history of WP:RFArb reveals that the change was made back in mid-October by Jayjg, with the edit summary . | |||
| :@] Imo, per the principle of ], no it doesn't apply to older ones still ongoing, such discussions would be grandfathered in. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This strikes me as a pretty big shift in the way that the ArbCom does business. When I was ] I actually thought it was an inadvertently-introduced error by someone who confused the case opening and closing criteria. It seems to me that it raises the bar for taking a case to Arbitration ''very'' high. Was this the intent of the change? | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| I am concerned that there may be unintended consequences that at first blush don't appear to make sense. For example, there are nine active Arbitrators at the moment. If six voted to accept a case while three voted to reject, there would be a two-thirds majority in favour of accepting—but the case would be rejected under the 'four net votes' standard. (Similarly, there could be cases rejected by five-to-two or four-to-one margins if – as often happens – not all Arbs participate in the vote.) | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If this change and its effects were deliberate, I think it would be a good idea (heck, I would appreciate it) if the ArbCom (or at least a few of its members) could comment on their reasoning here. Thanks, ](]) 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| (If there's a long discussion somewhere on-wiki that I've missed, that would be helpful too.) ](]) 17:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If there was a discussion it was on the arbitrators IRC or mailing list. I remember discussing it, but don't remember any definite outcome. ] 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I raised this very concern on an ArbCom member's talk page. I was hesitant to bring it here, as I have little experience with this facet of Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom member in question gave me the impression he will be running for re-election (I have not verified this) and he (and another potential member) both expressed understanding of the concern and promised to address it. To quote my original post: | |||
| :<blockquote>I brought this here because I'd rather have an informed opinion on the current state of acceptance than open a can of worms prematurely. Note this is not sour grapes for a ] i felt should have been accepted... I'm more concerned about a well-intentioned policy that may have consequences far beyond the scope the change originally envisioned. As you (and others) have pointed out, when fewer than the full ArbCom becomes participates in RfARB acceptance procedure, the possiblity of appropriate cases being delisted with significant support (as occured in my proposed case), all compounded with ArbCopm members posting deny votes before involved parties can comment... it seems like the ArbCom process has been castrated, and with it those who would game the wikipedia system have more opportunities to do so with less fear of repurcussion. If the intent of the policy was to lessen the burden on the ArbCom, it definitely does that -- but at what cost? If not, what mechanisms would be appropriate for addressing this unintended consequence? I haven't done the research to see if the semi- or non-participating members are at the end of their appointment term... if so, perhaps it is simply burnout. I think either way this is a problem that needs attention of those who are better informed and poised to address the issue. Am I off base? If not, how would you recommend I proceed? /] 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| :I'm not sure if it's appropriate to link or name the parties who participated in responding (or the userpage on which it was posted) but I was assured that the issue would be addressed by the appropriate parties. Please let it be noted here that '''I do not support the change at this time''' due to the (possibly unconsidered) ramifications it has caused. /] 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::See ] for discussion of this issue in the context of the first case in which it made a difference, for my view and, more importantly, comments by two of the arbitrators. ] 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Once again, I'm not privy to private ArbCom discussions on the mailing list or IRC, so I expect I'm missing a good chunk of the story. Still, I'm a bit troubled that the only ''public'' comments on this issue from Arbs are from Jayjg (who implemented the change), Fred Bauder (who doesn't recall any definite outcome of discussion), and Dmcdevit (who has said he doesn't like the change). | |||
| :::My apologies for rocking the boat during ArbCom elections. (Is that why Arbitrators are reluctant to comment here?) I was away on vacation when the (brief) on-wiki discussion linked above occurred. To a lay outsider like me, it ''appears'' that there may have been a bit of a breakdown in communication among arbitrators and between Arbs and the community, and that lack of communication has resulted in a dramatic shift in the criteria for accepting a case arbitration. | |||
| :::The old criteria required four accept votes – not even a majority of Arbs – for acceptance. In other words, if you could convince even a substantial minority of the committee that a case had merit, it would be accepted for full consideration. (Jayjg's comment that this process negated the opinions of Arbs voting 'oppose' holds some water here. Nevertheless, if four Arbs smell smoke, it may be worth looking for fire. Oppose voters are also entitled to make their case for rejection, and ''all'' voters are entitled to change their minds before a case is accepted.) | |||
| :::The new criteria require a supermajority. Right now, we have cases where only five Arbs can be bothered to express an opinion, and those cases go rejected based on a single 'oppose' vote (4 accept less one oppose makes three 'net' votes.) With a committee up to full strength of fifteen, cases could be rejected on a 9-6 vote. | |||
| :::If the ArbCom is having workload and burnout problems, it might be a good idea to consult the community for suggestions. We're always glad to help, and I'm concerned that the bar has been raised too far without much consultation. Aside from the suggestions that have been floated regarding creating subcommittees of the ArbCom to handle straightforward cases, there's also the tool of recusal. Any Arb is free to say "I don't have the time right now to give this case an appropriate amount of attention; I withdraw from voting" or some variant on that theme. I actually rather hope that this happens more in the new year; having a full panel of fifteen Arbs working on every single case is almost certainly overkill. | |||
| :::But I'm still speculating and suggesting in the dark. More comment on the reasoning and process involved in this change would help a great deal. I may be entirely incorrect in my guesses here, and if that's the case then I'd like to know. ](]) 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| We always have problems at this stage. Soon a new crew will come aboard and this question might be addressed anew. I guess my question is, What should our policy be and why? ] 18:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==="What should our policy be and why?"=== | |||
| :''Quoting Fred to open a new section...'' | |||
| For starters, I think it should be easier to open a case than to decide a case. Right now a vote of 5-2 will approve an article or even site ban but will not open a case. It is my understanding that it takes 4 votes for ] to accept a case—a minority can open a case but it takes a majority to decide. I also think the issue Jayjg raises that ''reject'' votes should count somehow is interesting, but ultimately a red herring. Arbitrators who oppose hearing a case can make comments that may sway other arbitrators, or use private channels to try and persuade the others. ] 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. This and a couple of other nuances of the arbitration policy should probably be reviewed once the new arbitrators are chosen. ] 19:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thinking scientifically, we are dealing here with ]. A Type I error would be rejecting a case that should be opened, while a Type II error would be opening a case that should have been rejected. The ''4 net vote'' procedure makes Type I errors more likely and Type II errors less likely. So one important question is, how many Type II errors occurred under the old scheme. Only 4 cases in 2006 were accepted that would have been rejected under the new system. (Actually, there is only 1 clear rejection, as the others were 4-1 and might or might not have attracted a fifth vote to open.) | |||
| {{User:Thatcher131/Votestoaccept}} | |||
| On the evidence, only one or two cases of more than 100 (10 per month, more or less) in 2006 was arguably accepted when it shouldn't have been. Using a simple 4 vote count to open does not seem to have resulted in increased workload or the acceptance of cases that were not appropriate for arbitration. | |||
| Regarding '''Type I''' errors (rejecting a case that should be accepted), the only possible case I am aware of was filed against . While Blaxthos continues to press his case, a quick check shows that {{user|Cbuhl79}} has only 52 main space edits, 274 total edits, and has not edited since October 28. It seems (warning, mPOV ahead) that there wasn't a lot of "there" there, and that Charles Matthews had it right when he said "''Let this dispute die a natural death, rather than putting it on life-support''". | |||
| All in all, given the lack of evidence that a more lenient policy promotes Type II errors, I would support a return to the 4 total vote standard for the reasons I suggested above. ] 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I applaud the statistical analysis, but I do have a few comments. First of all, remember that your statistical reporting period is not sufficient to negate the Type I threat -- the change has only been in place for a few weeks. That there was almost immediately a Type I error should be a red flag. With regards to the Cbuhl79 affair: it's very easy now to Monday morning quarterback and say "There wasn't a lot of there there"; however at the time the editor was taking drastically inappropriate actions, including falsely applying warning templates to userspace and making false reports on noticeboards. There was no indication at the time that he would quit (nor should it have mattered), and regardless of that fact at least four ArbCom members thought his behavior was bad enough to warrant acceptance. I think the statistics are skewed if you're basing your analysis on "all of 2006" (for Type II) versus five weeks (for Type I, in which there was immediately a Type I error). I think it is very significant to note the near immediacy of an error following the rule change. Definitely worth review, IMHO. /] 21:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| * Actually, this is up again following an agreement from the other party to now go into arbitration. . we have been through the entire gamut. He has had admins repeat policy on the discussion page and still will not adhere. Just rely on personal attack. | |||
| '''Please note, this is not a content dispute'''. | |||
| I simply would like the policy matter of ] clarified with or to this other user so that I can proceed with contribution without the consistent vandalism allegations from other IP address, bogus blocks being made upon me during which he can force through his POV and debate whis has persisted.''' The policy states; | |||
| '''Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)''' | |||
| Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as: | |||
| * it is relevant to their notability; | |||
| * it is not contentious; | |||
| * it is not unduly self-serving; | |||
| * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; | |||
| * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. | |||
| I don't see what fault I have in accepting it. ] 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The first problem with your case is that in the diff you provided you were "offered the choice of mediation or arbitration" and chose arbitration. That is not a choice. Arbitration is the '''last''' step in dispute resolution and the arbitrators will generally not hear a case unless mediation has been attempted and failed. Second, the arbitraotrs will generally not rule on what sources are acceptable or how to use them in an article. The arbitration committee is '''not empowered''' to hear content disputes, and no matter how you describe it, the question of whether certain sources can be included is a content dispute. The arbitrators '''will''' hear cases about disruptive behavior, or about editors who remove valid sources because they have a particular point of view about a topic, so I recommend that you offer some specific evidence of disruptive behavior like edit warring, article ownership, or trying to force the article to reflect a certain point of view and denying fair coverage to other points of view. However even then, the arbitrators may ask you to try mediation first. ] 02:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Mediation had also been attempted prior as per policy, as had RfC, admin requests, discussion, everything'''. | |||
| ::*'''The question is not content dispute and no about which sources are acceptable. It to hold the other contributor to the '''Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)''' policy NOT guideline stated above and - hopefully to stop these bogus blocks and vandalism threats.''' | |||
| ::'''I have shown in detail he has gone out of his way to block me using bogus vandalism reports from IPs within the same area/ISP that he kept secret and especially for doing so, even referring to his editing usename Riveros11 as a third party.''' | |||
| ::'''Stated at length and in detail stating time and dates and edits here ''' | |||
| ::Thanks ] 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have looked over your request for investigation and some of the linked comments. I think you have a strong case for arbitration but you have presented it poorly. However, given your claim that Riveros is a current recruiter and you are a former recruiter and trainer, and your intent to expose wrongdoing in the group, there is a strong chance that you would be sanctioned as well, either probation or banned from the article. It all depends on how good your sources are and how you have behaved in trying to add them. If the arbitrators feel you have been trying to libel the organization with poorly sourced or unsourced scandals, you're a goner. If they feel your sources are good and your efforts to add them are appropriately balanced, they may indeed sanction the other editor(s). Many cases come down in the middle, with some form of probation or article ban for both sides. It is very important to know that the arbitrators will consider the behavior of all parties and the person who brings the case will sometimes end up at the wrong end of the hammer. If you are willing to proceed knowing this is a possibility, I will try and help you present your case in a way that it will be more likely to be accepted. ] 03:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dear Thatcher131; | |||
| ::::Please see this link It si about user 195.82.106.244. Here you will see plenty of evidence of this individual character (diffs are included) This dispute is '''about Content.''' | |||
| ::::User .244 is an ex-mamber of Brahma Kumaris and has started this article here in Misplaced Pages. Obviously, his article has damaged the image of the institution where I belong to. If you would, please take a look at the archives. These archives will give you a pretty good picture of what has been going on. If there is no time for that, please get in touch with admin Jossi and user Sethie. These users have been "mediating" in a non biased way to improve the appearance of this article. Note that at this point, we have a version of the article by .244. He has reverted that article without previous discussion. In short, user .244 is using wikipedia to demonstrate his animosity towards a fine institution. | |||
| ::::Best Wishes, ] 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's hard to know after a brief review whether 195 is inappropriately attacking or you are inappropriately defending, which is why I indicated that arbitration cases can cut both ways. ] 15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*'''I admit that I was largely responsible for building this particular topic and would say that the "high point" of my influence was about here, '''. | |||
| ::::::I am happy to accept your judgement of whether that was unduly biased or an "exposé". (It was not finished or perfect but was a good base edit from which to work). Indeed, I had to face challenges over many objective facts from younger BKs that they unaware of, e.g. Kirpalani's prior involvement with the Vallabacharya sect and early opposition on behalf of the Arya Samaj to the Om Mandali and Om Niwas days of the ]. . I am not concerned to raise issues about any person shenanigans. | |||
| ::::::*'''Policy comes before content'''. | |||
| ::::::One cannot discussion content until policy is accepted by all parties. My question relates solely to the policy stated AND ] public acceptance of said policy. There are slightly extenuating circumstances here as the organization is religious, Hindu based and relatively new to the West from an academic point of view. Hence the specific request for a '''modicum''' of scriptural and purchaseable self-published resources. | |||
| ::::::*And I am happy also to refer to the given reference, as it shows Luis referring to himself in third person which supports the RfI above, which I only found following my discovery of which IP address he had been using to block me and others. ] 06:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Thatcher131==== | |||
| ''Fools rush in, etc. If this case is accepted I will recuse as clerk.'' can we just clarify here, when one uses the word recuse, it generally suggests a disqualification on the basis of prejudice or personal involvement. Is this so? | |||
| Thatch, that other IP that Luis used to only block me from contribution came through as a sockpuppet. It is too hard to believe he "simply happened to forget to sign in" on the one account he kept aside to block me so I would not work out where and he would look clean. | |||
| I just want to quote what you wrote on the checkuser page on my IP. | |||
| ''Dispute at Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Riveros11 and Appledell defending the article against an IP editor (195.82.106.244 (talk • contribs) who has been trying to insert poorly sourced negative information. '''Riveros11 reverts the article maintaining a reasonable attitude''' arguing against the quality and reliability of the sources. '''Appledell also reverts the article defending the organization but is less reasonable'''. Searchin man was targeted by the 195 editor as Riveros11, leading to the attempted disclosure of personal information by the 195 editor. (see separate case) The IP addresses have filed multiple reports at WP:PAIN, WP:RFI and WP:RFCU, which may be an attempt to intimidate the 195. user. All the IPs are in Tampa, and one signed as Avyakt7, Riveros11's signature, but I'd like to check to be sure. Thatcher131 03:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| You have written that I suggested that child abuse within the BKWSU was tolerated which is ridiculous. Are you trully impartial? | |||
| Now we have positive confirmation that the Tampa IPs were Riveros11, do you stick with your "reasonable" statement? I have always stated that I am happy to use the same cited data as him. | |||
| ] 06:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Arbitration clerks do not play a role in deciding arbitration cases, and in fact have the same rights as any other user as far as commenting on cases after they are opened. The clerk's role is mostly making sure people don't post in the wrong places and generally keeping the cases tidy. However, it is common practice that clerks who are involved in a case do not perform clerk functions with respect to that case. Presenting evidence makes me involved, even though I have nothing to do with the dispute. I originally looked into your evidence because I thought the dispute was interesting and had merit as an arbitration case, but was presented poorly with little chance of acceptance. I was certainly unbiased before I started, having nothing whatsoever to do with BKWS, new religions, or Hinduism in general in my private life. After looking at the evidence and behavior on both sides I believe there is a case to be made that only arbitration can deal with this situation, and as I said, based on the outcome of similar cases, I expect one or both sides could get banned from the article, or at least have their editing restricted. With regard to Riveros11 being "reasonable", that is a characterization of the personality of the named account, which, I suggested, was maintained by doing the "dirty work" (filing complaints) while logged out. This argument was necessary on the checkuser page to permit the disclosure of the IP addresses. It is usually inappropriate for the checkusers to disclose or confirm private IP addresses per the privacy policy, unless, as in this case, he has disclosed his own address by his actions. I made no comment regarding whether the filing of the complaints while logged out was an accident (your comment above in quotes is not a quote of anything I wrote) but the implication should be obvious. Finally, in this edit you inserted a '''Controversy''' section containing, and I quote, "''Documented incidents of child abuse within the organisation brushed aside by leaders as due to the bad karma of the children suffering sex abuse and outside of their responsibility, the perpetrators avoid punishment or reporting to police''", so yes, you do write that child abuse is "brushed aside" which is pretty much the same as tolerated, as far as I understand the English language. ] 09:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Dear Thatcher131, | |||
| Please do not forget this: Thank you. | |||
| :Dear SimonP; please take a look at this link and this If this is not considered to be a strong proof of user 195.82.106.244 sockpuppet with brahmakumaris.info and bkwsuwatch.. It will really surprise me that the obvious cannot be seen. BTW, If you have the chance to read all of his writings in the above mentioned post, you shall see that the root of the problem is '''content''' alone. That kind of content is just wrong for an on-line encyclopedia. Thank you. Best] 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ps: Here you will see the comments below the video in Spanish. Take a look at "bkwsuwatch" endorsing brahmakumaris.info site... Let us see how is this being handled... | |||
| ::Best Wishes, ] 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::More on it: I just found out that user Thatcher131 removed my comments. Claiming that "evidence" should not be placed here... I wonder if he realized that user .244 is doing that and his comments are there as well...Anyway, here is the link I would really like to know from user Thatcher131 how a "traceroute" is possible without IP addresses... Can you do that by using just user names? How is this performed? and most importantly : '''Is user .244 coming from the same place as brahmakumaris.info?''' Why it was so easy for him to find that appledell, searchin man and myself are in different places and he/she did not mention about .244 and brahmakumaris.info? Something just does not make much sense ... | |||
| :::Best, ] 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024
| Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Misplaced Pages. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.
This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist. Please click here to file an arbitration case • Please click here for a guide to arbitration | Shortcuts |
| Arbitration talk page archives |
|---|
| WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
| Various archives (2004–2011) |
| Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
| WT:RFAR subpages |
| Archive of prior proceedings |
Motion 2b
Can an administrator use this to grant more words or remove the word limit from certain discussions? I'm trying to avoid making this another whole thing, so if there's general agreement on it I'd prefer not to open another ARCA. Pinging @Chess and Selfstudier: who's discussion made me think of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- HJM seems to think so. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect?
There are many discussions that began before the word limit motion passed. Does the word limit only apply to new discussions, or does it apply to older ones as well? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Chess Imo, per the principle of ex post facto, no it doesn't apply to older ones still ongoing, such discussions would be grandfathered in. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Egad
Is there a clerk around -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)