Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bearian (talk | contribs) at 16:45, 6 July 2011 (→Comments by others?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

My apologies - based in part on how other participants were acting, I assumed the replies weren't part of the 500 character limit. My thought on this is that because so much discussion occurs before a case is taken, and because "temporary injunctions" have sometimes made even when a case is not accepted (as with Pending Changes), it would make more sense to start a separate page for a proposed case from the very beginning, even though it may never be taken. This way people could make these discussion comments in more normal threads on a dedicated talk page, rather than using "@xxx" type responses. Wnt (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'd prefer it to be
• 1000 words + replies for named parties
• 750 words for others
• No limit for Clerk/Arbitrator sections. - Penwhale | 10:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

In your model, if an arbitrator directs a question at an 'other', can they go over the 750 word limit? John Vandenberg 07:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Guidelines, not exceptions, are what's expected. - Penwhale | 09:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Picking Nits

RE: The Nabla request; In Part "A" of the Alternate Motion, I noticed the wording as: "While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping". It caught my eye due to Risker's sage advice that all admin's make note of it. What I was wondering was, and note that I was strongly in favor of not desysop in this case, .. the question comes to mind that "block" would be stronger than "desysop". That is to say:

• While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping and/or blocking.

I only say this because I recall that on a very rare occasion or two, an administrator's account was found to be compromised. I believe someone other than the original editor came into the knowledge of how to log on as that admin. I know it's really, really nit-picking ... but hey, how often does anyone get a chance to point out a possible better wording up here. :) .. cheers and best to all. — Ched :  ?  04:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the and/or. In this case a block now would be punitive rather than preventative, and I don't think anyone is arguing for a block. I'm fairly sure that everyone would be happy for Nabla to continue editing, ideally logged in, it's just that some editors would rather that Nabla lost the mop. However there have been other occasions when admin accounts have needed to be blocked, but we would be happy to have them continue as admins once the reason for the block is resolved. ϢereSpielChequers 15:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I guess it's all a matter of perspective on the comparison. I was thinking in the strictest sense of editing, where you can still edit w/o the bit, ... although I can understand the "power" behind a desysop too. It was just a passing thought, and too good to pass up. :) — Ched :  ?  21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification of an enforcement scope of WP:DIGWUREN

I am posting an updated version of my unanswered question from two weeks ago, as it seems to have been swept aside in the aftermath of the latest big wikidramu, which took over those pages shortly after I posted it, and was later weirdly archived here.

Regarding WP:DIGWUREN (Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions), would it be:

1. ) applicable to an editor who at a general 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" and makes similar arguments, the gist of which is arguing that EE editors are not neutral/biased
2. ) applicable to an editor who at a general policy page (applicable to EE articles but also others) makes bad faith / incivil remarks regarding another editor, primarily by linking to or mentioning an EE-related ARBCOM case with expired sanctions to back the claim that "this editor is biased, as the XYZ case proves", "this editor has been found to be disruptive, to edit war, has supported editors who were found disruptive", and so on. In other words, is there any recourse when an editor is trying to damage another editor's reputation by citing/linking old ARBCOM findings with the rather obvious attempt to poison the well and win an argument by reminding others "what bad, bad deed that evil person did X years ago"?

If WP:DIGWUREN is not applicable, I'd appreciate comments what, if any, policies are, and where such behavior can be reported (or are editors just supposed to take such poisoned comments for years and decades)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others?

I am not sure that it's a faux pas, but I added "I agree", or words to that effect, to three comments. If it's taboo, please slap me with a fish on my talk page. Thanks. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)