Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: AGK ( Talk) & X! ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad ( Talk) & SirFozzie ( Talk) |
Perhaps this could be moved to the General Discussion area by a Clerk? It is neither a request nor a motion, by my understanding of the intent in this instance, and appears to be incorrectly placed. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Please call proposals something other than "template." (Is this something the clerks should do?) This will make it easier to follow discussions on the watchlist. Thanks. Wrad ( talk) 06:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
In everybody's best interest, can people perhaps agree to close that overlong thread that has developed in Nina's proposals section? The workshop page is meant for brief discussion of concrete proposals for the final decision. Nina's proposals were unlike anything the Arbcom would ever actually do from the start, and the ensuing debate has strayed even further from the goal of the page. It might be useful for the parties to study actual Arbcom decisions in prior cases, to get a feel for what kinds of proposals are likely to be adopted, and how to word them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Note to clerks: Unbelievably this has been reverted by Smatprt
[1] with the edit summary Bold-revert-discuss - no discussion or consensus on collapsing my proposal. Indeed the consensus above applied only to Nina's proposals by the letter, but the point of the consensus is that those threads (two of Nina's with Smatprt's sandwiched in between) were inappropriately long for a workshop page (extended discussion should be here), off-topic, and so far away from anything that ArbCom was even remotely likely to consider that they ought to be collapsed. I'd be grateful if a clerk would collapse the section per consensus above, and drop a note to Smatprt to ask him to quit playing word games and making
pointy reverts. --
RexxS (
talk)
14:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Brad and myself have begun work on a proposed decision in this case. While I won't say that any further information will go unread, I would suggest it would be a good idea to finish up any evidence or workshop proposals in the coming days. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I am responding to a statement by NinaGreen that includes "a false allegation by Johnuniq implying that I had made 21 distinct edits on 20 December" diff. My "allegation" was not false: it was a simple statement of fact, with evidence. As seems common in matters relating to SAQ, the message was missed. I was simply suggesting that an excessive number of talk page edits were being made, and I provided brief explanations of my concern. This is the background:
At no time did I suggest there were 21 distinct messages, just 21 edits. The claim of a false allegation should be struck out. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I have notified NinaGreen of this discussion here. diff Johnuniq ( talk) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Nina, you were not outed. I was. I am trying to follow this issue to a conclusion. It has nothing to do with you. Would you please step away from this particular issue? As I said, it has nothing to do with you. And please stop copying and pasting everyone else's comments all over the place. Please. Smatprt ( talk) 06:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The incessant stream of frivolous accusations by NinaGreen against other participants in this case has become unbearable. I am aware that it's usual practice of Arbcom to let people in Arbcom cases do more or less as they please, giving them "enough rope to hang themselves" as the saying goes, but we must also take account of the stress this causes for the other participants. In the present case, I believe a borderline about how much we can legitimately ask other contributors to endure during a case has been crossed.
I consider myself still an uninvolved administrator who can legitimately impose sanctions to stop disruption, and I am willing to do so if none of the Arbs or clerks will do it themselves, unless I receive explicit instructions from Arbcom members against it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: AGK ( Talk) & X! ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad ( Talk) & SirFozzie ( Talk) |
Perhaps this could be moved to the General Discussion area by a Clerk? It is neither a request nor a motion, by my understanding of the intent in this instance, and appears to be incorrectly placed. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Please call proposals something other than "template." (Is this something the clerks should do?) This will make it easier to follow discussions on the watchlist. Thanks. Wrad ( talk) 06:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
In everybody's best interest, can people perhaps agree to close that overlong thread that has developed in Nina's proposals section? The workshop page is meant for brief discussion of concrete proposals for the final decision. Nina's proposals were unlike anything the Arbcom would ever actually do from the start, and the ensuing debate has strayed even further from the goal of the page. It might be useful for the parties to study actual Arbcom decisions in prior cases, to get a feel for what kinds of proposals are likely to be adopted, and how to word them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Note to clerks: Unbelievably this has been reverted by Smatprt
[1] with the edit summary Bold-revert-discuss - no discussion or consensus on collapsing my proposal. Indeed the consensus above applied only to Nina's proposals by the letter, but the point of the consensus is that those threads (two of Nina's with Smatprt's sandwiched in between) were inappropriately long for a workshop page (extended discussion should be here), off-topic, and so far away from anything that ArbCom was even remotely likely to consider that they ought to be collapsed. I'd be grateful if a clerk would collapse the section per consensus above, and drop a note to Smatprt to ask him to quit playing word games and making
pointy reverts. --
RexxS (
talk)
14:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Brad and myself have begun work on a proposed decision in this case. While I won't say that any further information will go unread, I would suggest it would be a good idea to finish up any evidence or workshop proposals in the coming days. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I am responding to a statement by NinaGreen that includes "a false allegation by Johnuniq implying that I had made 21 distinct edits on 20 December" diff. My "allegation" was not false: it was a simple statement of fact, with evidence. As seems common in matters relating to SAQ, the message was missed. I was simply suggesting that an excessive number of talk page edits were being made, and I provided brief explanations of my concern. This is the background:
At no time did I suggest there were 21 distinct messages, just 21 edits. The claim of a false allegation should be struck out. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I have notified NinaGreen of this discussion here. diff Johnuniq ( talk) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Nina, you were not outed. I was. I am trying to follow this issue to a conclusion. It has nothing to do with you. Would you please step away from this particular issue? As I said, it has nothing to do with you. And please stop copying and pasting everyone else's comments all over the place. Please. Smatprt ( talk) 06:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The incessant stream of frivolous accusations by NinaGreen against other participants in this case has become unbearable. I am aware that it's usual practice of Arbcom to let people in Arbcom cases do more or less as they please, giving them "enough rope to hang themselves" as the saying goes, but we must also take account of the stress this causes for the other participants. In the present case, I believe a borderline about how much we can legitimately ask other contributors to endure during a case has been crossed.
I consider myself still an uninvolved administrator who can legitimately impose sanctions to stop disruption, and I am willing to do so if none of the Arbs or clerks will do it themselves, unless I receive explicit instructions from Arbcom members against it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)