Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piotrus (talk | contribs) at 02:25, 22 June 2011 (→Request for clarification of an enforcement scope of WP:DIGWUREN: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Length of statements

Statements posted on requests for arbitration are supposed to be a maximum of 500 words long, with a certain non-specified extra allowance per the judgment of the clerks, where needed. However... FT2's statement in the Mindbunny request is 2,000 words. Is this ridiculous length a special dispensation for former arbs? Or is it a tacit acknowledgement that FT2 is unable to restrain himself, length-wise, and must therefore be indulged? Or have the clerks decided to drive us all mad? Mad, I tell you! Bishonen | talk 17:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

I assume you mean the BLP & FR request. I would do something about it, but (1) I'm not sure how subsequent replies affect to the world limit and (2) one of us is probably going to remove the case request as declined within the next day anyway. NW (Talk) 20:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is of course a quite ridiculous length, but I really wouldn't bother doing anything about it because no one on Misplaced Pages ever bothers to read beyond the first 150 words in any arbitration statement. As my beloved nephew always says: "pack the punches at the begining and grab em in." Mr FT2, I am sure, is a terribly nice man, but he is rather tedious and does need to learn to pack his punches a little more tightly or his comeback as going to fail. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I see that there is a (partially collapsed) statement currently on the page that runs to about 3,000 words.   Will Beback  talk  09:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• 3000 words is, of course, grossly excessive. I have dealt with that particular section. If anybody is interested, I briefly discussed the value of such a restrictive word count with User:Newyorkbrad on his talk page; I don't think the thread has been archived yet, and I am sure input would be welcome there. AGK 11:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem here. Long statements are generally not helpful, particularly if there are lots of cases for arbs to read, and particularly if a case has lots of long rants that amount to peanut throwing from the gallery. OTOH, we have fewer cases there days, and often the request statements and responses to such by parties and arbs are the means by which the dispute itself is resolved. If is effectively the parties having a last ditch attempt to discuss matters with the eyes of the community and the committee on them - the result of which is often that the case is solved, or another solution emerges which saves the committee the far greater timesink of an actual case. Thus a strictly enforced word limit, even if set higher, may be problematic. I suppose you could limit contributions from non-parties (but often these are more perceptive and objective than partisan screeds). Alternatively, you need to have clerks judge the merits of contributions over a certain length, which has its own problem. The solution, I suspect, is simply to warn people that longer contributions are less likely to be carefully read. The maxim tl;dr often applies. Although long posts by certain people are usually worth reading.--Scott Mac 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I was linked to this section by clerk AGK. I'm strongly against any raising of the word limit, and believe it needs to be properly enforced. The bloat rot—both in terms of text and case duration—starts right at the beginning, at the RFAR. The notice at the top says it's not the place for full evidence, but for posts concerning whether the Committee is to accept or decline the application. If an editor can't put their point in fewer than 500 words, send them to me: I'll reduce it to below 500 words without removing any relevant meaning ... for free (seriously ... I figure I wouldn't have to do more than two or three for people to stop bloating).

The clerks should be instructed to simply remove text from the 501th word onwards, with a note to that effect, plus a message on the person's talk page inviting them to reword their post so it's compliant. Again, the clerks wouldn't have to do it much after people realised the Committee's rules mean what they say. The Committee needs to encourage succinctness in editor's posts to it: I say this as much for the benefit of the process as for that of the arbitrators and clerks themselves, who should be given the opportunity to make their decisions on the basis of tightly reasoned arguments. It's not a soap-box for editors. Tony (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Most editors are predisposed to writing at length, but I agree that almost all the statements made at requests for arbitration could easily be shortened through the use of a more precise, tight form of writing. I also think it would be a good idea to institute your suggestion for removing everything from the 501st word - because it is a perpetual source of confusion for the clerks as to whether we should redact statements summarily, blank the entire text, or otherwise delete selectively. I would like to hear the input of the arbitrators here, and will presently take Newyorkbrad up on his offer at his talk page to draw the attention of the Committee to this thread. AGK 15:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing talks about precisely the kind of writing style that I have in mind, and should in future be required reading for anybody who wants to make a statement in a request for arbitration, clarification, or amendment. AGK 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a sharp knife at 501, and a note from the clerk about it, the exception is reponses to questions from the committee (not the gallery/other people posting statements). There are very very few posts longer than this that merit it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I also like it, as it allows swift action by the clerks. John Vandenberg 23:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• More expansionism for us all to read as we speak (this one is now 807 words). I do believe that where a statement is knocking up close to the limit in the first place, additions should be "paid for" by a contributor's partial removal of their pre-existing text (with a link to it on their talk page, like this: Text relocated to stay under word limit). So you get your 500w slot, and that's that. OK, it's not ideal to allow the moral hazard of bloating via links to a user's talk page, but it would make editors think twice about adding and adding in a kind of endless dialogue with other contributors—and if they do post tit-for-tats, they'll make 'em short. It's a bit cumbersome for them to remove bits and paste and link them, which is a good hurdle. Tony (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for recusal

I have posted a request here to Shell Kinney to recuse from the Political activism RfAr filed by Coren, including from any discussion on the ArbCom mailing list as to whether it should be accepted. Could a Committee member advise whether there is a procedure I ought to follow to request recusal? SlimVirgin 19:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is covered by the freshly ratified Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Recusal of arbitrators. –xeno 19:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. SlimVirgin 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the thread in question, Shell was engaged specifically as a member of the Arbitration Committee; and per Misplaced Pages:AP#Recusal of arbitrators, "Previous ... arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal."

  Further, from my read of the forwarded email thread, it does not appear to me that Shell was acting "in support of Cirt and not as a neutral party"; she seemed to be merely seeking substantiations or clarifications on particular claims put forth in the emails. This is not unreasonable, and is something a neutral party ought to do to assist the parties in clearly communicating and elucidating their concerns, to ensure they are understood; and further, to try and guide the communication towards a mutually-agreeable resolution. Quite the opposite, a party would not be neutral if they accepted the claims or one side as accomplished fact without asking them to back them up with well-delineated examples. In this case, Shell prompted both parties to provide evidence for their claims.

  SlimVirgin has asked Shell Kinney to recuse, as suggested by the section of the arbitration policy linked above. As Shell has declined to recuse, SlimVirgin may now "refer the request to the Committee for a ruling" if she desires. –xeno 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (cross-posted from User talk:Shell Kinney)

I'm posting below something I posted on Shell's talk page, in response to Xeno saying he had read the email exchange and found nothing that would require Shell to recuse.

When this email exchange with Shell occurred, I assumed the situation was attributable to an uninformed Committee member who weighed in aggressively without having read the evidence or emails carefully. That happens to the best of us, so I was willing to be privately disgusted then drop it.

But if the ArbCom as a whole is saying the exchange presents no grounds for Shell's recusal, and insufficient concern about Cirt's editing to proceed with a case (two separate issues), then I'm almost speechless. Both Shell and I forwarded copies of the correspondence to the Committee. In my version, I summarized the key issues at the top. If that summary didn't sink in, we have a serious problem here.

What I would ask now is for someone from the Commitee to explain to me, by email, why this issue is not regarded as (a) important enough to proceed with the case; and (b) important enough to require Shell's recusal from it. If they can persuade me that my view of this is wrong, and I am open to persuasion, I'll drop it. Otherwise, I would like a sanity check from uninvolved people. I would like to find an appeals mechanism, perhaps using stewards from another wiki who would agree to read the exchange, so that any appeal does not involve current Committee members. SlimVirgin 22:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the past, appeals of ArbCom decisions have gone to Jimmy Wales. I know he's stepped back from some responsibilities, but it looks like he still has some involvement in appeals. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal_of_decisions   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My statement should not be taken as the opinion of the committee "as a whole", as it is just the opinion of one arbitrator. As I stated above, you are free to request a ruling from the committee en banc. (I have not taken a position on the matter of Cirt's editing.) –xeno 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It would have been better for you not to make a public statement about the correspondence. Shell and I discussed it onwiki, then sent it privately to ArbCom for further review. That was the end of the comments in public, as I understood it.

For individual ArbCom members to come out now with statements about it means that further responses rebutting those statements will prove necessary, because in my view what you have said is quite false; in fact, ridiculous. So it's not a good road to go down, and it's becoming clear that uninvolved sanity checks would be helpful. The question is how to obtain them. SlimVirgin 23:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that your claims made in public about Shell's participation in the email thread should be allowed to stand without being addressed publicly?

You cannot seek official participation of arbitrators and then later claim that same official participation makes them 'involved' and then suggest they can no longer act as arbitrators on the matter. –xeno 23:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Shell and I discussed it onwiki, and we each expressed a view. The last thing that's needed is for a second Arb to chime in, when I'm unable to explain what I think the key issue is, as you well know.

Also, as you know, I did not seek official participation of arbitrators. On June 6, six days before the RfAr was filed by someone else, I asked Cirt to discuss my concerns. I asked Cirt to choose a third party, either an Arb or a functionary, as a witness to avoid misunderstandings. Cirt chose Shell.

Nothing else happened, Shell was not around, Cirt said his family members were in surgery (as he also said onwiki), and I stopped replying on June 6, that same day. It was over as far as I was concerned. Coren filed an RfAr on June 12. Shell then revived the dead email correspondence that day, within one hour of declining the case.

I have emailed the ArbCom to request Shell's recusal, and I ended that email by asking that Arbs not continue to discuss this email exchange in public. SlimVirgin 02:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:SPA participant in santorum request

User:Gacurr has entitled their statement section "Statement by (mostly uninvolved) Gacurr". Aside from questioning another user about their name, their entire edit history is related to this one article. They appear to have created the account on 6 June 2011 solely for the purpose of editing the article and participating in discussions about the article. The section heading seems misleading and inappropriate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. John Vandenberg 10:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am of the view that nothing is acceptable in a section header on RFAR except 'Statement by Foo' or 'Comment by Foo'. Permitting users to name their sections whatever they want results in confusion (and ugliness). AGK 10:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have see a small benefit in everyone using "party", "involved", and "uninvolved", but not everyone does this so the result is useless. I agree that it can be confusing and ugly, so would support removing them altogether. Another approach would be to have three sub-sections: statements by parties, comments by others involved, and comments by uninvolved people. Or just two: parties and others involved, and uninvolved. John Vandenberg 11:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am mostly uninvolved with the matter that Coren notified the template and talk pages about. Gacurr (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe I am correct. You can read the notices yourself. Gacurr (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

With apologies to my colleagues

I knew this was a can of worms, but I hadn't realized this was the Bottomless Can of Atomic Worms (of DOOM!) Sorry to plop this on your laps. — Coren  02:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the former Senator intends to be a candidate in the quickly approaching election year, and the volume of text already at hand, I suspect it would have found it's way here sooner or later. :) — Ched :  ?  02:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Points of order: Political activism RFAR

The rules say very clearly (bolded): "State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail."

But it seems that the clerks are just ignoring this. Quite a few entries are in the 800–1100 range. Which other bolded rules about ArbCom procedure will the clerks ignore? Tony (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I've just realised that AGK is the clerk for this RFAR. I find it weird that he is making partisan contributions to the process. I'd have thought the clerks would be strictly uninvolved, and if they had private feelings would keep them to themselves and either recuse or consciously avoid being influenced by them in their actions. This is the governing policy for admin behaviour, let's not forget.

I ask that the clerk recuse and be replaced by one who is overtly uninvolved in the matter and prepared to act with neutrality. Tony (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this by chance on my watchlist, and wonder why you did not take this up with me directly. I am not the case clerk for that request, because I have just been assigned to the MMN case - and, as you say, because I have opined in the request thread. I will not be clerking the case, and I do not recall doing anything that would make you think I would be. If you want me to explicitly recuse in the clerk notes section then I will, but that is usually only necessary if a clerk is directly involved in a dispute. Regards, AGK 09:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Post-script) Ah, you mean the warning about word count that I gave yesterday. That was before I decided to comment. As for the clerks "ignoring" Committee policy, I confess myself seriously irked at your tone, and will waste no further time here other than to say that this is the norm. Spirit, not the letter, of the policy, eh? AGK 09:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got this badly wrong. Withdrawn. However, if it's "the norm" that a bolded rule in the box at the top is the norm, there's a serious problem. If that tone irks you, there's another problem. Now, the spirit and not the letter ... 500 words is the bolded limit, so I think 850, 1020, 1050, 830 words is far beyond any subtle distinction between the two. As you know, one of my concerns is that ArbCom cases blow out of control with text (and time) bloat. The fact that clerks don't take the word limit seriously ... I mean really seriously, is the rot that sets in at the start. Tony (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the word limit is widely accepted to be too restrictive, by the community and by the current Committee. There is a discussion on the issue on this page, at #Length of statements. If we can use that to reach some kind of consensus on what the limit should be, then the clerks could more confidently enforce the word limit. By the by, we do regularly draw the line at grossly excessive statements: in the past month, I've blanked the sections of people who had statements that ran to 1500, 2000, and 3000 - yeah, really - words. Regards, AGK 10:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a re-occurring problem but, as AGK says, the hard part is deciding on what should be the maximum, and when clerks should intervene, especially when people new to arbitration are involved. Arbitrators generally dont care too much about this because waffly comments that are not addressed quickly end up being read by the entire committee anyway, and we dont enjoy watching someone refine their statement because then we need to read each revision as well. Perhaps we could start to make inroads by having a {{sidebox}} (similar to the one beside this comment) added to all statements, evidence, etc. which are over length. John Vandenberg 11:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Apologies. I am not a regular here. Feel free to remove my statement as I do not have time to refactor today. (700+ words) and again, my apologies, it was not a deliberate attempt to circumvent any of the rules. — Ched :  ?  12:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I relocated a post I made here to the section above linked to by AGK. Tony (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The template displayed when editing the case page says, "Be succinct. Long, rambling contributions are less effective." Including a note on the word limit there could help. Gacurr (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We also need to address the issue of replies. It makes little sense to limit initial postings to 500 words, but have no limit for the length of replies.

Theoretically, the posting on this page are just to show sufficient cause for opening an arbitration case. However the custom of settling some cases by motion may encourage some to present as much evidence as possible in the request phase. Or, it may be an effort to attack the opposing side with as much evidence as possible, regardless of whether the case moves forward.

Whatever the cause, excessive postings are a burden on Arbs and any member of the community trying to follow the request. Some cases are especially complicated and may require more explication, but the "santorum" request does not seem any more complicated than the average case. Perhaps there should be a mechanism for allowing additional material in extraordinary cases when the request itself is so complicated that it's difficult to fully explain in 500 words.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Tony1, (et al) hopefully this is sufficient. — Ched :  ?  06:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Well ... no! It's nearly 40% over (682 words). Since you've asked me specifically, I'll say that there are slabs at the top and in the middle that could be removed or summarised. In places (the google bit, etc.) it becomes very discursive: I do believe the arbs will glaze over and skip through it, in which case your impact is fatally weakened. Chopping it to less than 450w (including the "response") would do your case a lot of good. It wouldn't be hard. Please let me know if you want me to spend 10 mins doing a version for your consideration, to prove the point. Tony (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement and reply lengths

I would like to ask that the procedure "Submission of evidence" is changed by adding the following short sentence:

"By default, are limited to about 500 words and about 50 difference links and must be posted on the applicable case pages. Subsequent responses to other users should be proportionate and short."

The issue is that a user who writes a statement of <500 words may then feel obligated to respond to others' questions. They then have to modify the original statement so that original statement and all responses fit into 500 words. Often this can't be done.

For example, in the current "Political activism" case, Coren posted an original statement of 373 words. But his current statement comprises 1110 words, including two replies of 130 and 99 words respectively.

• MacWhiz posted a statement of 400 words which now has length 1195 words (including 795 words replying to the comments of 5 arbs).
• Sadads posted a statement of 335 words which now has length 1236 words (including 881 words replying to 4 users).
• Jayen446 posted a statement of 172 words which now has length 1006 words (including 834 words replying to 4 users).
• Wnt posted a statement of 225 words which now has length 879 words (including 654 words replying to 4 users).

This is far from atypical. It is clear that users are staying within the limits for the original statements. But if any of these (by way of example) had to later also fit their original point and also replies to all other users within the same 500 words, they struggle.

Could the Committee consider making it clear that replies are outside the original 500 words and providing a limit or a target average words per reply (some shorter, some longer), or simply noting that responses are not formally word limited, because it's clear many users have difficulty on fitting replies into that word count. FT2  16:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that responses to other users should be outside the original word count. The idea is not to stifle discussion, or prevent arbitrators getting answers to their questions. And 500 may generally be a little low in complex cases. (And sorry for the excessive length of my original statement. I thought by hatting the background I could leave it up to people whether they wanted to read it or not.) --JN466 18:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my statement here as to why the current 500-word limit should be strictly enforced in all RFARs. This statement has been prompted by the current RFAR because I rarely visit them and was extremely disappointed to see that the bolded rule at the top, and the reasons for it, were being disregarded. Tony (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony, your comment is mainly that you believe all necessary points can be made within 500 words, inclusive of full responses to questions, points of clarification, or rebuttals of potentially 4 - 8 other users who address the users concerned.

It's not clear how this would work in practice. Would you 1/ limit all original statements to around 200 words to leave room for responses, or would you 2/ have users continually rewriting their statements to squeeze in responses, causing statements to be in constant flux and other users potentially to have to re-write their statements in turn?

I'm dubious but I accept you believe it's possible. I'd be interested how you would propose to do it, and whether you offer (or expect others to offer) a one man service for RFAR statement writing -- because most people don't have that skill and the average RFAR has a great many statements. It wouldn't be a "quick fix".

My underlying concern is that RFAR statements need to present the view -- and the evidence for that view -- for the user, also rebuttals for other views if needed, and then subsequently the user often needs to respond to a range of multiple-point questions added on an ad-hoc basis by other users and arbs. I don't see that routinely fitting into 500 words. Nor, apparently, do a great many RFAR participants. Hence the request that responses to questions are considered separate from statement length. The user has no control over questions asked. FT2  02:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, with several parts, but they all depend on each other: (1) Raise the limit to 750 words per statement; (2) STRICTLY enforce that limit in all cases; just have the clerks cut off any statement at the 751st word; (3) any added comments, responses or answers should be placed on the TALK PAGE (i.e. this page), with a link from the main statement to the appropriate location on this page; alternatively the editor may edit his/her original statement so that all material will fit into 750 words; and (4) answers to QUESTIONS asked BY AN ARBITRATOR do not count in the word limit; this applies to questions, not statements, and the arbitrator should identify who is being asked the question, e.g. on the requesting party, all named parties, everybody, etc. I don't think my suggestion requires a lengthy justification; in light of the above discussion, the merits of my suggestion are either self-evident or they aren't. I would only add that in reading arb request pages from a few years ago it seemed that in cases with a large number of statements, the clerks would (at least sometimes) move the statements of "uninvolved" editors to the talk page. Part 3 of my suggestion is based on that idea, though as written it would apply to all editors and only to the comments, responses and replies that would exceed the word limit. It could be tweaked to apply differently to involved vs. uninvolved editors, if desired. Neutron (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, Neutron, but I believe 500 words is more than adequate for both an initial statement and in toto if it's subsequently added to in cross-fire between editors (something we should all want to discourage). Could I remind people that in addition to "State your request in 500 words or fewer", the instructions clearly say: "you are not trying to prove your case at this time" ... "All editors wishing to make statements should keep their statements and any responses to other statements to 500 words or fewer" ... "Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor inappropriate material without warning."

At a participating editor's invitation, I sent them an example of how easy it is to reduce statement text and in doing so to make it more effective. The revised version of just their final paragraph came down from 200 to 110 words without loss of substantive meaning, and was greeted very positively by the editor. It's not rocket-science: anyone here can do it. But it won't happen until the clerks apply the existing rules. No one takes the slightest notice of the rules at the moment, yet I believe it's a matter of both social practicality and consideration for the arbs. Tony (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony, many users do not have that skill. Dense yet comprehensive writing of that kind is a skill or art-form, not a "given". You have it. Most - the vast majority - clearly do not. It's a common mistake to think in terms of "A singularly skilled user could do it, so all users should be expected to". A major observation of the strategy and new user retention projects has been that those who are experienced at Wiki matters are (without blame being attached) sometimes least suited to understand that markup and policies are hard for others, because to them, it's easy. This is similar. You find condensing a statement to 500 words "obvious". Quite a few other skilled writers and FA authors probably do too. Most don't, which is why "brilliant prose" is comparatively rare. You need to consider RFAR statements and replies in the context of a community, 95% of whom actually do not have the skill you take for granted and will not be able to learn it - even under threat of forcible word limitation - for an occasional RFAR case. It needs a more widely workable answer. FT2  21:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

We have two sets of people at arbitration. Parties and everyone else who turns up to say their bit.

The only people who we should accommodate are the parties.

The others are voluntarily opining on matters that don't directly affect them. They can limit how much they say; they don't need to say everything on their mind.

Uninvolved people without the necessary skills can develop their skills by practise; they can do this by sticking to the word limit and trying to make their point in the available "space". John Vandenberg 01:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we have:
A 1000 word limit for people listed as parties Keep the 500 word limit for everyone else, and this word limit includes any follow up thoughts by non-parties.
Replies to arbitrators do not count, provided they are an actual response. (this is part of user:Neutron's proposal above)
No word limit is imposed on arbitrators comments within the arbitrator section. John Vandenberg 01:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Out of curiosity, I wonder how hard it would be to institute some sort of "word count" within the edit box that would warn folks when they reached a certain number of words. Probably too complex for this single area of WP, ... just a passing thought. — Ched :  ?  02:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

John, sounds good, although I grit my teeth at a whole thousand words (and would prefer 750w for named parties). Ched, your idea of the automated word count is excellent; these facilities are commonplace on the internet, usually as character limits (it's easy to arrive at an equivalent for these purposes). This would save the clerks a lot of time and effort, and would create precisely the environment for the disciplined management of RFARs. I vote that the matter be sounded out with WMF developers: it could be quite easy to arrange. FT2, on your comment "many users do not have that skill. Dense yet comprehensive writing of that kind is a skill or art-form, not a 'given' ": not so much dense as keeping statements tightly scoped (on-topic, if you like). It's easy: you start by writing the message(s) you want to convey to the arbs in short bullets; expand from there if you must, but remember that packaging your message to the arbs at the start of your statement will have the most impact. This is true of all such texts. Tony (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The WMF developers would mark this as 'WONTFIX'. The word counter could be built initially as a gadget using the JavaScript word counter already designed for DYK purposes. I don't think it require much effort to develop a prototype. After a bit of testing we can make the gadget enabled by default for all users. John Vandenberg 05:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This would be so useful for the project—not just here, but in a number of venues where text length is limited by consensus. Tony (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification of an enforcement scope of WP:DIGWUREN

Regarding WP:DIGWUREN (Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions), would it be applicable to an editor who at a policy page (applicable to EE articles but also others) makes bad faith / incivil remarks regarding EE editors (for example, discussing the bias of "Slavic editors", identifying votes of editors as "X comes from a Slavic country", linking expired ARBCOM cases to back the claim that "many Slavic editors are biased, as the XYZ case proves", and so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)