Can everyone please, use discussion page for their objections or views on proposals. Otherwise, Workshop page is becoming unreadable. Thanks. Atabek 00:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that a too-long workshop page becomes very difficult to read, but moving all the comments to the talkpage is not the best answer. That would just make the arbitrators have to look on yet another page every time they evaluate a proposal, and be very hard to follow. Perhaps very long threads should go on the talkpage (but leave it up to a clerk or arbitrator to move them, please). What I think would be most helpful is for everyone to make their points as concisely as possible, and only add comments that are likely to help the arbitrators understand the case, which after all is the whole point of the page. In particular, long debates between the parties ("you broke parole" "no, I didn't" "yes, you did" "no, I didn't" ad infinitim) should stop as soon as no new information is being provided. Letting someone else have the last word on a paragraph is not an admission. (All this of course is subject to any thoughts the arbitrators may have.) Newyorkbrad 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I also have a question. The parole was violated by a number of people, some of whom are not named as parties to this arbcom case. Will the arbcom deal with their violations as well? -- Grandmaster 07:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- If the parole violations themselves are considered grounds for additional sanctions, then probably yes.
Mackensen
(talk) 10:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- But are they? The parties to this arbcom are not the worst offenders of the parole. Grandmaster 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have a question, how much longer do we have to post more evidence and proposals? I'm still not completely finished. Thanks. Hajji Piruz 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I second this question because I and others (some due to unavailability) have not started posting their evidences yet. -
Fedayee 23:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I also wanted to know how much longer do we have to post the evidence. Considering the amount of users involved and the fact that its July, many of the users are not fully available. MarshallBagramyan for one is on a month long vacation in Armenia. I propose a two week extension in order for us to gather the evidence needed and for the members who are currently on vacation to come back. VartanM 23:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would personally prefer this to be finished as soon as possible, because I have plans for my vacation as well. -- Grandmaster 05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I too insist that we all need more time for evidence. If Grandmaster needs a vacation, we can continue after he comes back. Considering the importance of issues, it's essential that we get it right, then rush it and get it wrong.-- TigranTheGreat 07:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Re: Tigran - I too need more time. I am collecting. Hetoum I 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge, parole violations are usually dealt with using temporary blocks extending in length. So technically parole violation is already addressed by the previous ArbCom ruling and should not be a subject of the current ArbCom. This new ArbCom is mainly about the new forms of disruption, from new and old parties, not addressed by the previous ArbCom. Isn't it so? If not, and if parole violations are relevant to the new ArbCom, then we have some parties from previous ArbCom, which violated the parole 3-5 times, and perhaps they should also be included in the current ArbCom. Atabek 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Can everyone please, use discussion page for their objections or views on proposals. Otherwise, Workshop page is becoming unreadable. Thanks. Atabek 00:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that a too-long workshop page becomes very difficult to read, but moving all the comments to the talkpage is not the best answer. That would just make the arbitrators have to look on yet another page every time they evaluate a proposal, and be very hard to follow. Perhaps very long threads should go on the talkpage (but leave it up to a clerk or arbitrator to move them, please). What I think would be most helpful is for everyone to make their points as concisely as possible, and only add comments that are likely to help the arbitrators understand the case, which after all is the whole point of the page. In particular, long debates between the parties ("you broke parole" "no, I didn't" "yes, you did" "no, I didn't" ad infinitim) should stop as soon as no new information is being provided. Letting someone else have the last word on a paragraph is not an admission. (All this of course is subject to any thoughts the arbitrators may have.) Newyorkbrad 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I also have a question. The parole was violated by a number of people, some of whom are not named as parties to this arbcom case. Will the arbcom deal with their violations as well? -- Grandmaster 07:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- If the parole violations themselves are considered grounds for additional sanctions, then probably yes.
Mackensen
(talk) 10:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- But are they? The parties to this arbcom are not the worst offenders of the parole. Grandmaster 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have a question, how much longer do we have to post more evidence and proposals? I'm still not completely finished. Thanks. Hajji Piruz 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I second this question because I and others (some due to unavailability) have not started posting their evidences yet. -
Fedayee 23:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I also wanted to know how much longer do we have to post the evidence. Considering the amount of users involved and the fact that its July, many of the users are not fully available. MarshallBagramyan for one is on a month long vacation in Armenia. I propose a two week extension in order for us to gather the evidence needed and for the members who are currently on vacation to come back. VartanM 23:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would personally prefer this to be finished as soon as possible, because I have plans for my vacation as well. -- Grandmaster 05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I too insist that we all need more time for evidence. If Grandmaster needs a vacation, we can continue after he comes back. Considering the importance of issues, it's essential that we get it right, then rush it and get it wrong.-- TigranTheGreat 07:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Re: Tigran - I too need more time. I am collecting. Hetoum I 20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge, parole violations are usually dealt with using temporary blocks extending in length. So technically parole violation is already addressed by the previous ArbCom ruling and should not be a subject of the current ArbCom. This new ArbCom is mainly about the new forms of disruption, from new and old parties, not addressed by the previous ArbCom. Isn't it so? If not, and if parole violations are relevant to the new ArbCom, then we have some parties from previous ArbCom, which violated the parole 3-5 times, and perhaps they should also be included in the current ArbCom. Atabek 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)