Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments by A. C. Santacruz: rfc participation re:acs |
|||
Line 27:
*::::Yes, I think that would be a nice principle. There comes a point of diminishing returns though, and that one at best says to me that none of our remedies are going to work perfectly if at all. So I guess future ArbCom might see it and think we might have possibly had a reasonable inkling of the future. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 07:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
*{{u|Guy Macon Alternate Account}}, do note that basically everyone that's commented on that RfC is either a party to this case or have commented on the recent COIN thread and so are involved with the discussion from before the RSN thread. I'd argue there is still not wide enough participation in that RSN RFC to make any conclusions about it.[[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ⁂ [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 17:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
*:It is at a centralized noticeboard so that it can be found by a wide range of editors and because it has an RfC tag, a number of others will recieve talk page messages inviting them to participate. In terms of attracting community attention that is basically all that you can expect - the other thing that can be done under [[WP:CANVASS]] would be to notify appropriate WikiProjects. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by Bilby ==
| |||