"10) The community discussions cited in finding of fact #2 were chaotic in format and structure, and demonstrated a severe tendency to stray from the core topic into secondary debates. These factors may limit the ability of uninvolved users—particularly less experienced ones—to participate meaningfully in the community sanction process, and the ability of users facing sanctions to adequately respond to allegations made."

I really think the above statement (#10 Community discsusions) has to modified or toned down. It think this most recent ANI was right on target the whole way through. I believe characterizing it as "chaotic in format and structure" is not accurate. In fact it appears to be a statement derived from a point of view. The format was normal for an ANI; people show up and add comments. There was nothing exceptionally chaotic in format or structure, for an ANI. The wording here needs to be more neutral. I am curious what are you comparing this with, to come up with that kind of characterization? It was a community of voices, which leads me to my next comment.

What secondary debates are you talking about. I hardly saw any "debates". I only saw a lot of agreement between editors. So far this is an overgeneralization.

In fact I can't think of any debate, except the admins debating towards the end regarding sanctions. I would think it would be normal for Admins to debate about sanctioning an individual. I really think this is over-inflated, and more POV. I do not see this statement (#10 Community discussions) as useful up to this point. So far the whole process of this last ANI sounds like it is being derided.

"These factors may limit the ability of uninvolved users—particularly less experienced ones—to participate meaningfully in the community sanction process" - I disagree. Some admins followed the ANI, some did not. Some read the whole ANI after it was over, but before sanctioning. There are no factors placing limits on Admins ability to grasp the point of this ANI. And there are no factors placing limits on any other editor to grasp the point of this ANI. The community spoke loud and clear. One other thing - what does "participate meaningfully" mean? I am sorry, but that is vague.

After reading this last part - "and the ability of users facing sanctions to adequately respond to allegations made." How about looking at it like this. An editor with an unorthodox and uncooperative editing style dominates the talk page of one article, after another, after another and after another. At the same time this person adds controversial edits to one article after another for any flimsy reason. This person also has groups of generous editors (including me) who engage this person, over and over, in the hopes this person will finally see the editing light. Then at the ANI - this lion suddenly becomes ineffective. Then at ArbCom (if it gets that far) this lion has once against lost his roar. I don't understand it, and I have seen it before, at ANIs, but only a couple of times. I don't think it is the responsibilities of these venues, i.e., ANI and ArbCom, to do any more, to make sure an adequate response to allegations is made. There is plenty of opportunity and plenty of time in either of these venues to respond, in any fashion, to allegations. Also, I don't think it is possible for anything outside of the individual to change this. Well, I hope this critique was helpful. I apologize if I offended anyone. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]