Precisely what is extraordinary about the motion by the Committee to remove Iridiscent? The motion was mandated by the provision for removal due to inactivity, in the ArbCom Policy, and we can only infer that the removal was a completely routine action. Apparently, the Signpost has resorted to dramatising the motion, which if true, frankly renders me disappointed. AGK [•] 20:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See below. The decision of the Committee to remove one of their own for activity is AFAIK unprecedented, and thus cannot straightfacedly be termed ordinary. The timing of the action also hints strongly that it was not routine housekeeping but a move made specifically in response to the circumstances of the election; again, extraordinary. Hope this helps, Skomorokh14:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary as in not ordinary. Presumably a motion to remove an arbitrator is not an ordinary action therefore it is extraordinary. NtheP (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses. I understand the meaning you intended to convey, but to me we can only infer that that the motion was remarkable or unusual, not specially convened. YMMV. AGK [•] 14:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean now. I hadn't considered the secondary meaning of the term at the time; yours is a reasonable reading given the phrasing. Skomorokh15:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very disappointed that anybody should resort to jargon and gobbledygook. I had to look up the definition of AFAIK to find out it means "As Far As I Know." This is the sort of in-groupishness that drives away editors. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to News and notes