| Revision as of 23:33, 29 December 2006 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,578 edits Revisiting Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:31, 3 January 2025 edit undoJJPMaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Rollbackers10,681 edits Notification: listing of Misplaced Pages:ACCR at WP:Redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle | ||
| 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__ | |||
| == 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 {{ping|Chess|Selfstudier}} who's discussion made me think of this. ] (]) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request for help== | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for help, but I am frankly overwhelmed by looking through all of tihs information. I am currently seeking help for a situation on the talk page of the ] article. Two users, ] and ], are treating me in a very hostile manner, and they are making decisions on the page without regard for the input of others or previously accepted standards for the page. I fear that if I don't seek help now, this won't end. Does anyone have any suggestions on what to do? Thanks. ] 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :@] 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? == | |||
| :Andrew: I've put a detailed (maybe verbose) comment on your ]. The short answer would be | |||
| :* This is not the right place | |||
| :* Start here: ] | |||
| :Good luck. — ] 04:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==Comments on motion in Giano case== | |||
| Sadly, Giano will be bullied and hectored by the likes of you no more, and has decided Misplaced Pages can have the government it truly deserves. ] 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| : Misplaced Pages has no government (though it does has some somewhat-eclectic governance). But ignoring that, and assuming to speak for the rest of the Committee, we are sad to see you go, and hope that you will return. | |||
| : ] ] 01:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| --- | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Feel free to remove this if this is not proper procedure, and move it to the proper area if need be - I'll note that ] was an issue here. As it seems folks are very quick to vote on this one in particular, I impore the arbitrators to do some research into this to see if it's an issue before diving in on what will certainly (if it hasn't already) affect the quality of the project. As Giano was not as much as warned about civility, nor do any of the findings of fact of the case find civility to be an issue in context, I'm not convinced of the degree of punishment fits the alleged crimes given the possible baiting. --] <small>]</small> 03:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| ===Move to reject=== | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3#Misplaced Pages:ACCR}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #On formal grounds, this is not a proper request. There is no provision at ] that allows such a motion to a long-closed (3 months) case. | |||
| #On ethical grounds, this is not proper, as we see three support votes arrive within 13 minutes. It is so exceptionally rare that three votes appear on ''any'' proposal on any side of the issue that it appears that the voters were involved and therefore should have recused. | |||
| #On legal grounds, this is entirely inappropriate. Civility sanctions were considered in the original RFAR, and they were rejected. In other words, that evidence was considered, those findings were made, and those motions were considered. '''Barring a new evidence phase''' with new evidence of new wrongdoings, there is no way to overturn and re-arbitrate in motion form. No venue for consideration or deliberation is presented here. | |||
| This is ill considered and illicit. Furthermore, I would add that Giano ''has already'' suffered death by a thousand pricks, as people have already been blocking him whenever they've felt like it. These blocks have been instantly reversed in every instance. Therefore, the "penalty" is already status quo. Additionally, given the way that ] and ] is in flames due to a wedge of people pushing at Giano and a much larger group resisting, and given the fact that Jimbo recently unblocked Giano, this motion would prove to be far more disruptive than Giano saying that he doesn't expect Doc Glasgow to understand what it means to not talk behind people's backs! The motion is vindictive, and that's not what ArbCom does. ] 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Geogre, this is ''arbitration'', and not the place for streams of consciousness or lawyering. Most of what you've said here is nothing but procedural. I'm not interested in a circular argument, so here are a few short facts. Motions of this type are common; your "formal grounds" are simply factually incorrect. There are no "legal grounds" upon which to reject a motion: you seem to be under the misconception that ArbCom is a judicial body, when it isn't. The basis of this motion is continued incivility, not the old cases. Your accusations that this is "illicit," "vindictive," or that I and the other two are involved in some way have no basis whatsoever, and border on insulting. Please don't make such idle claims without evidence; resorting to ''ad hominem'' while skirting the actual basis for the proposal is unwelcome. ]·] 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::For there to be "continued incivility," there would have to be a finding of incivility to begin with, no? Reading the AN/I thread, I'm more and more convinced that certain parties are baiting him. --] <small>]</small> 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've already commented on a couple of other pages that I was surprised to see this motion in a closed case presented for immediate voting, without at least providing the subject and others with an opportunity to comment on the proposal. ] 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Much worse, it appears the damage has already been done. --] <small>]</small> 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If it has or has not, the principle remains important, and this motion is not appropriate. ] 04:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd hate to be legalistic about this, but the Arbitration Policy states that ''"The Arbitrators will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to Arbitrate."'' Incivility by Giano is not mentioned at all in either the proposed or the final decision of the previous RFAr, so this flare-up between Giano and Doc looks like an entirely different dispute to me. Wouldn't it make sense to defer it to mediation or RFC, rather than immediately escalating it to ArbCom? ] 10:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not in dispute with Giano. I don't know what we'd be mediating. I've been trying to de-escalate the community conflict all week, and I've no idea why Giano appeared on my talk page with personal attacks.--]<sup>g</sup> 12:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == All call for some creative thinking == | |||
| We need to de-escalate this thing. It has been going on for too long, and is far too damaging. I think it well obvious that the community can't settle this alone, and Arbcom may need to intervene. However, unless Arbcom want to be seen as just another player in a partisan dispute, care needs taken. It seems to me the issues surrounding Giano boil down to a vicious circle: | |||
| #Giano is incivil. (A quick look at the diffs in this motion are evidence enough) | |||
| #There is a wide perception that Giano is being excused gross incivility that would not be tolerated in any other wikipedian. | |||
| #This encourages some Wikipedians to try to 'get' Giano (or at least the perception of this): to provoke/bait his incivility to a point that he will be blocked or the community will have to act against him. | |||
| #The sense of being 'got at' (trolled, even) leads Giano to being more incivil, and to in turn bait his opponents (What was he doing on my talk page anyway?) | |||
| #The perception of a 'get Giano' campaign encourages other Wikipedians to defend him come what may, and to try to focus attention on the failings of his 'persecutors' (some of them justified). | |||
| #This defence of Giano (or at least the failure to blame him for the incivility) increases the sense of injustice. | |||
| We have got to the point that blocking Giano simply increases the temperature, yet not blocking him increases the sense of injustice. We need to do two things: | |||
| #As a community state that Giano's incivility/attacks must desist. If it does not then, regrettably, he and Misplaced Pages will soon part company. Giano must be treated like any other established editor. | |||
| #As a community ensure that any baiting, provoking or campaigning against Giano, or any perception of this shall desist. Giano must be entitled to be well-treated an protected like any other established editor. | |||
| A gentle word in Giano's ear by Jimbo has failed. Firmer action needs taken. Yet, this proposed remedy isn't it. It will simply be a permission for those who feel aggrieved by Giano to look for ways to block him. We can't expect him to tolerate that. And those that defend him will only feel the injustice of this. | |||
| I propose that Arbcom ] and try the following: | |||
| :Arbcom appoint three independent persons and charge them to defuse the situation. They are charged and empowered: | |||
| #to block Giano for any future incivility as they see necessary, and/or to temporary ban him from any user talk page or other forum where his comments are likely to inflame. | |||
| #to warn, and if necessary block, any user who's future interactions with Giano might be construed as tending to bait or provoke him, and/or to temporarily ban them from further interactions with Giano. | |||
| #no other administrator is to block (or unblock) Giano without the consent of these persons or the arbcom. | |||
| I realise this is novel, but unlike anything else I've heard considered, it just might work. --]<sup>g</sup> 12:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The proposed motion allows Giano to be blocked by any ''uninvolved'' admin. I don't see why this is insufficient, other than Giano's automatic assumption that everyone who advocates blocking him is an "IRC fairy" out to get him. Giano's massives failure to assume good faith in this area is his problem, not ours. I do think that for the sake of transparency, block requests should be made through the normal channels (AN/I or ]), but I'm not sure that needs to be written formally into the motion, and even if it was I doubt it would lay to rest Giano's belief that he is being persecuted by the IRC cabal. ] 13:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I ''was'' an uninvolved admin when I blocked two months ago, Chairboy considered himself uninvolved this time. That didn't stop the assumptions of bad faith, which are unfortunately not simply Giano's assumptions. Besides, I do think Giano has been subject to some baiting, and this remedy might encourage (or be seen to encourage) involved people to bait that uninvolved people might block. This isn't just about Giano, this is about a community at war. I'm looking for a general peace plan.--]<sup>g</sup> 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::What reason does he have to assume good faith at this point, though? AGF has its limits, clearly. --] <small>]</small> 14:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::? I, for one, have acted in good-faith throughout. Giano has consistently chosen to assume otherwise. If he thinks I lie, then there is little I can do about that. We ask everyone to AGF, why should Giano be any different?--]<sup>g</sup> 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm not convinced you're the problem here, although I see no reason for him to assume good faith of any "IRC fairies" or whatever folks who IRC are considered. There's many, many problems at stake here, and when people are actively baiting him, and he's unfortunately taking it, he's not the only person at fault. --] <small>]</small> 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*I think these are excellent points by Doc Glasgow. While Giano's behavior is problematic, it's not only ''his'' behavior that is problematic. Putting only Giano on parole implies that only he is to blame here. ] 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I continue to support my vote on the motion. It is a very mild sanction, and if enforced responsibly, may lead to resolution of the problem. The missing element is Giano, who must accept some responsibility and begin to work on acting nicer to other users. Others must help too, of course, but Giano needs to get on board, admit some fault, make a few apologies, and change a bit, himself. ] 15:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't agree that this "is very mild". ] ] 22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::So he's baited directly following a ruling involving him where baiting is an issue, and this is considered mild? What, exactly, is the responsibility of those who continue to bait him if Giano must accept responsibility to the point of being sanctioned? I note again - Giano was not found at fault, warned, or anything in the arbitration case this references. --] <small>]</small> 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In hindsight, we should have warned him, not cut him the slack we did. ] 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Which I can accept. However, what I'm still failing to see is the balance on this - again, the evidence suggests plenty of baiting, on and off site. If, "in hindsight," you can see a reason to have made this an issue in the original arbitration, I question why that same hindsight isn't being applied given the findings of fact in the case to the parties who are continuing to be bothersome. --] <small>]</small> 16:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You interpret Giano as a victim, I interpret this totally otherwise. The point of my suggestion was not that we agree I'm right, or that you are right. It was that we recognise that some people feel Giano has been treated unfairly and harassed, while others feel that he has trolled and consistently been given a free pass. We are never going to agree. We need a remedy that recognises both interpretations and allows us to move forward. If wither side insists on a 'win' here, then we all lose. The balance here is that it allows Giano a guarentee of protection from harassment, whilst insisting that he has to be civil in future. So hopefully we move to a situation acceptable to all (except those who want to 'win' a 'war')--]<sup>g</sup> 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think Giano is a victim here. Being the victim, however, doesn't give him a free pass. I'm not requesting Giano be "let off the hook" or whatever, but for the arbitrators looking at this to actually propose something that reflects the findings of the previous case. If an editor is being baited again after the previous case surrounding him had a finding regarding baiting, and nothing has changed, those involved with the baiting should be held accountable as well as Giano for losing his shit again. --] <small>]</small> 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Indeed. Looking over the evidence in the Giano course, I concur that a civility warning for him would have been appropriate. However, from that very same evidence, civility warnings for a few other people would ''also'' have been appropriate. Thus, a parole on Giano would seem to be a rather one-sided remedy. Also, given how easily people are accused of incivility these days, I do not agree that a year-long civility parole is "very mild". ] 16:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Logs?=== | |||
| So what was in those IRC logs, Jdforrester? The suspense is killing us. ] 10:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Why was this comment not moved to the talk page, if dissenting views were? ] 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: No idea; it's been moved now. | |||
| :: ] ] 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : There are lots of claims about IRC logs existing, and various people quoting from them; I cannot vouch for said logs' existance or their accuracy, sadly, as, well, despite what people suggest, I'm not actually omniscient (yet). From what I can gather, it is in some way my fault, for being "in charge" of IRC, for being there but not stepping in to stop people acting, for trying to get people to discuss but not getting them to do what party ''x'' wants me to have achieved, or for not being there at all. I'm most confused, I have to confess. Were people to ask me direct questions, I might be able to answer them. :-) | |||
| : ] ] 18:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == On UninvitedCompany's proposal == | |||
| I am sure that Uninvited intends this as a kind way to enforce a wikibreak for someone who seems to be in a ''very'' upset mood at the moment. Even so, I cannot shake the feeling that this is really a two-week ban no matter how it is worded. I recall a cartoon (]?) where the villain places the heroine on the railway tracks, says that he is going to be very gentlemanly and not tie her down, and asks her to just remain down, upon which the heroine agrees. (Of course she is rescued in the last second.) ] ] 15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *He already '''left.''' All those articles in progress are lost to us. A user is here for 3 years. No one notices any "incivility" for two years, and then suddenly he must be "banned," according to Kelly Martin. A dozen templates and blocks follow, where every comment from "you're stupid" to "go away" is a vicious "personal attack" that requires an instant block without consultation, and he leaves. What changed, folks? Him or us? What is proven, that he is incivil or that anyone can be made to abandon volunteering for us if we are vicious enough? Fools. ] 15:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::What changed is us: when ] was noted, but ]. ] 18:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Um ... how to phrase this? ... with the greatest respect to your work as an arbitrator, Fred, the remedy you proposed as to Giano in the case you refer to was not the one you cite (which does not mention Giano). It was ], which was considered wildly disproportionate if not bizarre by virtually everyone who commented and did not pass, but sat on the voting page for close to a month before being rejected because other arbitrators were away over the summer. Unfortunately and regrettably, I believe that Giano's anger at that proposal played a not insignificant role in how things unfolded from there. ] 20:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have corrected the link. The point is that even a mild remedy was rejected, although I do think the stronger remedy was justified. People who get caught do get angry. ] 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's just an artifact of voting by committee. As you know, it has happened that some arbitrators support remedy A and oppose remedy B, and others support remedy B and oppose remedy A, and as a result no remedy passes at all, even if a majority believe that ''some'' remedy is necessary. In any event, if the committee had voted a formal caution for the teasing involved in the Eternal Equinox case, I think we just would have lost Giano (and possibly some others) in August instead of now. ] 21:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it was User:John Reid (now also lost to us) who opined, when he was a party to the original "Giano" case a few months ago, that he was he would readily accept and abide by a proposed ArbCom decision banning him for a week, but would never forgive anyone who actually blocked his account for the week rather than trust him to obey the ruling. I suspect that it is that spirit that UC is appealing to here. Personally, I don't think a ban would be helpful here, but that is something of a moot point if, as Geogre has noted, Giano is gone in any event. ] 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The proposal is intended to serve several important ends. As Sjakkalle perceptively notes, it is a two week ban. I believe that the level of discourse has deteriorated at Misplaced Pages to an unacceptable degree, with ] honored mainly in the breach. In order to fix this, we've got to start somewhere. Giano may not be the worst offender in this area, his responses may not be the most unprovoked, and his case may not be the best example, but it will nonetheless serve. A two week ban is neither a mere slap on the wrist nor is it something which should lead a dedicated and responsible editor to conclude that they must leave the project. | |||
| I would like to point out to Geogre and others who share his views that while Giano has left for the time being, he may well return at some point. Experience has taught us that many editors who leave in frustration ultimately return. What has changed? I'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe that it is wise for us to ignore ongoing civility violations once they are brought to our attention. No doubt you are correct that many earlier opportunities to defuse the situation were missed, but that's water over the dam at this point. Your point that people sometimes do get hounded to the point where they flame out is well taken, and I would agree that elements of that are present in this situation. That testifies for a need to address such hounding head on. It doesn't make the case that we should ignore an inappropriate response to it. | |||
| As I noted during my candidacy for the arbitration committee, I believe "probation" remedies have historically been overused. Having Giano subject to such a remedy, where he could be blocked by admins with relatively little process and limited opportunity for review, hardly seems useful. Administrators blocking Giano in such a manner in the past appear to me to have contributed to the intractability of the situation. Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but if the remedy is adopted I would hope that he would sit out the two weeks and return as a full-fleged member of the community. | |||
| ] Co., ] 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Revisiting ] == | |||
| Since it appears that we are revisiting ], I went back and read through some of the pages associated with that case. The situation here bears distressingly similar hallmarks to what happened here. I would suggest that the best solution might be to community ban all those involved in the latest contremps for two weeks and wait, with baited breath, to see if the encyclopedia collapses around our ears. I suspect that there might be stronger consensus in the community to collectively identify those involved and carry out such a ban than some of those involved might realise. | |||
| Failing that, it was instructive to see that the remedies included: ]: ''"Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator."'' | |||
| I would respectfully suggest that the time has come for this to extend outside Misplaced Pages, and that arbitrators, who should be role models for the community, should be expected to display decorum when discussing Misplaced Pages on blogs, in newspaper interviews, IRC channels, e-mails, personal websites, and so forth, as well as when representing Misplaced Pages in their official roles. | |||
| If this is thought to be workable, will one of the arbitrators consider bringing a motion to return to the Jdforrester remedy and modifying or restating it in an appropriate way? That would be better than the rather pathetic edit warring that is going on at the moment over these "IRC logs" in the edit history of this page. ] 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:31, 3 January 2025
| 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)
"Misplaced Pages:ACCR" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Misplaced Pages:ACCR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3 § Misplaced Pages:ACCR until a consensus is reached. JJPMaster (she/they) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)