Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#((ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=))
"RfC [with] focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.". Personally, what particular questions/aspects would you want to see discussed? Any particular concerns?
Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree, and another that MILHIST was
counsel[ed]...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden?
Arbs should be highly responsive to community concerns on the talk pages of casesand that
anyone who expresses an honest and constructive opinion should be taken seriously. Do you agree with the premises of these statements? Comment.
Thanks, in advance, for your answers. ∯WBGconverse 08:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
"on two occasions"but if I recall what happened correctly it was really in two different places with-in a short time that you'd made changes. If there really was a second incident some time later (or involving a different editor) please do point me towards it. Bigger picture, I think there is inherent tension between the "anyone can edit" ethos we have - and which I believe in - and the fact that we're a collaborative encyclopedia that operates on consensus - something I also believe in. When someone comes in with a large change - one way of being BOLD - there is a substantial chance that the response will be for the change to be undone and discussion started. That's collaborative. In this particular instance, you decided to BOLDLY change the process of New Page Patrol by adding in a new task and reorganizing the page and to do so without discussion. I think anyone deciding to BOLDLY change NPP procedure without discussion - me included - should expect to be reverted as changes to procedures generally need some level of consensus in a collaborative project. Further with this change, as you were not a part of New Page Patrol, you were in effect imposing a heap of work on other people to do. I would suggest that too was not collaborative. The consensus of the whole community, not any individual or holders of any particular PERM or any particular project, is what matters and frequently (though not always) changes to procedures, policies, and guidelines (that is changes in Wikipedia space) will require consensus achieved through discussion rather than merely BOLD editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. – Uanfala (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
"It will be overly optimistic for ArbCom to decline this case by thinking that the community is a few days or weeks away from solving it."However, the reasoning behind the declines offered by the Arbs (the other thing I just re-read) also tracks. This leads me to my second principle (third really but you already granted the first one in the premise of your question) for deciding whether or not to accept a case.After deciding it's in ArbCom's remit, and the community is unlikely enough to solve this on their own, I would ask myself what is how much benefit are we to see from a full case? As I write elsewhere on this page, a full case is a huge time sink for not all the arbs and the parties but for the community as a whole. If a full case gets us to a 100% solution (and we all know in honesty that a 100% solution is frequently impossible), I think there are times where a 75% solution done by motion might be a better result. For instance in the Rama case I support the end result. But given how low activity Rama was as an admin, could there have been some motion passed at the case accept phase that would have stopped short of full desysop but also stopped the worse of the behavior Rama was engaged in? All without the huge investment of time that I know went into that case by some editors preparing timelines and otherwise accumulating diffs? I suspect the answer to that is probably yes.So to circle back to PORTALS, I agree with the Arbs that the timing wasn't right then for a case. But having watched developments since then I think the 7 months that have gone by means the case is now well past the the point where a full case is needed. I think there can be cases like this where ArbCom votes to suspend at the case request phase for two months, four months, whatever and then after that time elapses put back the comments at WP:ARC and invites further discussion from the community about whether a case is needed. If elected I would be curious what the reaction of my fellow Arbs and the community as a whole would be to such a motion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)