Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 394: Line 394:
*You're right, Tony. It cannot be right that everyone else's restrictions are becoming fewer and yours are becoming greater when you do not seem to have been doing ANYTHING remotely controversial. I do hope the Arbs take note of that, and modify the amendment accordingly, or perhaps better if another amendment was drafted to cover your particular case. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 10:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
*You're right, Tony. It cannot be right that everyone else's restrictions are becoming fewer and yours are becoming greater when you do not seem to have been doing ANYTHING remotely controversial. I do hope the Arbs take note of that, and modify the amendment accordingly, or perhaps better if another amendment was drafted to cover your particular case. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 10:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
**Maybe I'm misreading, but I don't see how the proposed amendment would impose any new restriction on Tony.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 12:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
**Maybe I'm misreading, but I don't see how the proposed amendment would impose any new restriction on Tony.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 12:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
:::But, on further reflection, it probably means that Remedy 9.3 ("Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page.") is modified to: "Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates".
:::In addition, I presume that if this motion passes, the parties may edit, for example, MOSNUM, MoS and WP:LINK except for the parts dealing with "the linking or unlinking of dates"—and that the modified remedy would not involve the whole of those guidelines, just because they partly cover the linking and unlinking of dates.
:::I would be grateful if both presumptions were confirmed or otherwise. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:29, 5 August 2009

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: Ryulong (2)

Case affected
Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Enforcement #4
  2. Motion 2 (replacement of Remedy #4)
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • Mythdon (diff of notification of this thread on Mythdon's talk page)
  • Ryulong (diff of notification of this thread on Ryulong's talk page)

Amendment 1

Statement by Ncmvocalist

This is pretty straightforward. Although this is not a substantive change to the decision, the enforcement part of a remedy belongs in the enforcement section of a decision; except in the case of temporary injunctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

  • Motion 2 (remedy)
  • Desired modification: that the heading "Conduct Probation enforcement" and its accompanying paragraph, found in the above remedy, be removed.

Statement by Ncmvocalist

This becomes necessary to avoid the potential unnecessary confusion caused (and the repetition otherwise caused by amendment 1). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Mythdon

I was actually thinking about asking the Arbitration Committee to remove the mentorship enforcement myself. I, like Ncmvocalist, ask that the Arbitration Committee remove this enforcement as it is moot, and not enforcing anything, and can't be used without the mentorship remedy being in place. Arbitration Committee members, please pass a new motion in which this enforcement be removed. As for the conduct probation enforcement being in the "enforcement" section, I think that it should also be there, strictly for stylistic reasons. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please. ArbCom, pass a motion. Please. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryulong

Kay...—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: Privatemusings

Case affected
Privatemusings arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Principle 3: The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.


List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

  • Principle 3: The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.
  • The word sockpuppet should be replaced by alt account. Sockpuppets are bad things; alt accounts (as this principle admits) can be good things.
  • More importantly, the last sentence should be struck or recast.

Statement by Septentrionalis

The last sentence, italicized above, sets policy. It has been adopted at WP:SOCK, apparently on the basis that ArbCom said so. It is, I think, bad policy, but efforts to amend it while ArbCom's wording continues will be met with this irrelevant argument.

  • It does not describe what Privatemusings did wrong; see a summary of the problem, by JzG, here. Privatemusings had an account which revealed his real world identity; he set up several alt accounts:
He then proceeded to discuss policy intemperately, under the assumption that at worst, Privatemusings would be blocked, and Purple would continue unscathed. He also developped most of the abusive techniques that WP:SOCK condemns.


JzG suggested the following as an acceptable solution: At this point, had Privatemusings chosen to return to his second account, which is not traceable to real world identity..., but the second account (Purple) was still an alt.
The problem here was the abusive editing, and the assumption that alt accounts would not be recognized, so Purple would escape scot-free; not the discussion of policy. If Bishzilla were to discuss policy, nobody would complain, as long as Bishonen stayed out. We are all pseudonyms; it doesn't matter which pseudonym discusses policy, but what arguments they use.

Thank you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think Brad's point about deception is fairly well taken; the incorporation into WP:SOCK does not say that, and would be a reasonable policy if it did.

Again, the User:Geogre case, like all the others, concern abuses of alt accounts. To say that that justifies banning them would be like saying that the number of cases about bad admins justifies abolishing adminship. Tempting though that sometimes is....;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

I think this is proposed amendment is a bad idea. PMAnderson doesn't present any significant example of the current prohibition has causing problems. The use of undisclosed alternate accounts is tolerated in certain circumstances, but those should be kept limited to those that demonstrably help the project. There is no reason why an editor in good standing should need to use an undisclosed alternate account to discuss or edit policies, or other internal project debates. If that were allowed, there are many problesm that could arise, even by editors who feel they are working in good faith. See the recent matter of user:Geogre for an example of that. User:Privatemusings is another. It is easy to imagine a situation in which an editor is trying to make an edit that may not be allowed by policy. If he made a change to the policy using his regular account then it would be an obvious case of gaming the system. If he uses a separate account it might not raise any concerns. Wikipedia operates on transparency and mutual trust. This would be a step in the wrong direction.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS is correct that the community sets policy, but it does so in various ways. One way is by through consensus on relevant discussion pages, another is by altering the written policies, and a third is by unchallenged interpretations of the ArbCom. This particular matter was discussed by the community before the ArbCom decision, and after the decision the written policy was amended. So all three components of the policy setting mechanism were involved in this.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

I comment solely on the narrow point that "the last sentence should be struck or recast". I believe that ArbCom should take care not to make pronouncements that may be characterised as "making policy". Policy on Wikipedia has always been created by the community reaching consensus on a particular practice. The expression of that policy may then be documented on policy pages; and subsequently may be used by ArbCom to guide their deliberations. It is completely anathematic to our principles when a small group—even one as august as ArbCom—makes a statement that is then incorporated into a policy page and subsequently imposed upon the community. Put simply, that is the wrong way round. If it were to be shown that ArbCom were reflecting an as-yet-unwritten practice (forbidding alternative accounts to debate policy), then I would retract this statement. As it is, I doubt that to be the case, and request ArbCom to reconsider the wording "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates". --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Will Beback
I will have to beg to differ. There is a difference between policy being made and policy being documented. Making of policy occurs by the cumulative actions of our community of editors and enjoys consensus by that very fact. The only exception to that is when an RfC definitively decides on a policy that is contested. Documentation of policy may indeed occur by the three methods you outline, but please understand I am not arguing semantics. You only have to review WP:ARBDATE to see the results that can arise from assuming that changes to policy pages—even those enjoying consensus there—sets policy. The standard required for setting or changing policy is high; and without a strong community consensus, either taken from clear current practice or from a conclusive RfC, you leave it open to challenge at any time. It is exactly for those reasons that I humbly caution ArbCom against making policy statements, unless it is crystal clear that such policy already has uncontested community consensus. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Privatemusings

That bit was always a bit clumsy of a rather grumpy arbcom I reckon - the real problem in my view is folk kidding themselves that they're discussing principles, when really they seem to be looking for policy guns to shoot someone with - sometimes to avoid listening. This isn't really directed at anyone posting here at the mo, mind.

I do get to take this opportunity to point out the delicious irony of the chap rather vigorously condemning me at the time, running his own 'sock' throughout, complete with chat's about policy ;-)

Oh and my first account was kind of tangentially linked to my identity (particularly through other online sites and stuff) - but I'm cool with anyone mentioning it - it's not a 'badusername' ;-) - you can even call me Peter, I won't report you! Finally, I'd like to reiterate that I continue to assert this stuff, wouldn't agree with Sep's write up above (or maybe it's Sep's write up of JzG's statement?) - and though it's rather ancient history, and no big deal any more I'd point out that not a single diff has ever been forthcoming which showed deception in terms of multiple accounts (or much else for that matter :-)

If the silly 'you can't use an alternate account in policy discussion' bit is causing trouble, strike it, otherwise Brad seems spot on, as usual. Privatemusings (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

  • Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
  • Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Recuse, Privatemusings (under what was then an alternate account) edited alongside me at WP:NPA and related proposed policies. I am considering making a statement in this case. Risker (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of alternate accounts, while tolerated in certain circumstances, is generally not viewed in a good light by the community. The recent events are a clear indication of that. The use of alternate accounts (whichever name you use) in discussion or procedure, which depends on a clear consensus, is uniformly destructive. I see no reason to amend. — Coren (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not an arbitrator when the Privatemusings case was decided in November 2007 (in fact, only one member of the 2007 committee remains an arbitrator). However, I opined on the proposed decision talkpage at that time that the sentence being questioned in this request for amendment was, indeed, an interpolation into the alternate accounts policy rather than a reiteration of it. (See, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision#Principle 3 concerning sockpuppet policy.) In the ensuing discussion, it was suggest that this was simply an interpretation or exposition of the then-existing policy. ¶ Whether "only primary accounts may be used on policy and arbitration pages" is a desirable policy is debatable: on the one hand, we do not need rampant socking and game-playing on these (or any other) pages, and posting to these pages from primary accounts helps others discount a given user's input to the extent that might be warranted by knowledge of that user's own agenda or history; on the other hand, I can readily imagine situations heavy with "wikipolitics" in which a good-faith user would want to participate other than under his or her primary username. In my view, discussion on this issue can proceed on the relevant policy page, rather than seeking to amend this decision some twenty months after the fact. ¶ I would also note, with some dismay that it seems necessary to do so, that the obvious point of the sentence in question was to avoid concealment of the identity of a person commenting on these pages. Some of the instances mentioned above obviously do not, in any fashion, implicate that concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment related to Privatemusing choice of words. Please avoid calling people with names that don't belong to them (re the chap). That's all for the moment! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial point, one reason for the inclusion of this wording was to make people accountable for their comments during policy and dispute resolution discussions. If an alternative account is linked by name, disclosure on one of the user pages, or by definitive comments made by the account, then that would satisfy this concern. So several of the examples would not pertain to the particular wording. -FloNight♥♥♥ 13:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse on all things related to Privatemusings. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for lifting of EK3 restrictions

Statement by Everyking

In January 2009, I appealed to the ArbCom to lift all the remaining sanctions applied to me as a result of the EK3 case in November 2005. The ArbCom declined to do so, although it agreed to some easing of the severity of the restrictions. More than six months have passed since then, and nothing has occurred with regard to the case; I have not been blocked or warned in any way. The sanctions serve no purpose and exist in relation to a dispute that has been dead for several years, and I once again request that the ArbCom release me from them. Everyking (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Brad says he wants to maintain my sanctions for reasons he won't state publicly. If he thinks I should be under a perpetual restriction, I'd like to know why. There is nothing pertaining to any of this that I wouldn't want to be discussed openly on-wiki, and I feel like the ArbCom's decision-making on this issue is being based on things that I'm not even aware of, which is unfair. Everyking (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to Roger: you guys voted to lift all the non-Phil restrictions in January, including the appeal limitation. Everyking (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Coren: if this is "an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past", why do you want to keep me under this restriction? It seems inexplicable to say that the restriction serves no purpose while also maintaining that it should remain in place. Everyking (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comments saying that the restriction is only in effect because I have appealed it numerous times are very puzzling. Some of you seem to be saying that you want to keep me under restriction purely out of spite, because you are annoyed by my appeals. That's like telling a prisoner that the authorities had planned to release him, but since he had the nerve to ask for his release, they've decided to keep him behind bars. I don't understand how such an attitude has any relationship to justice or the resolution of the issue—clearly it's unreasonable to hold someone's own appeals against them, as if they were doing something wrong in seeking redress when they felt they had been wrongfully punished. Everyking (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Brad: if your objection is based on "the substance of the matter", I'd like to know what that substance is. I don't understand your unwillingness to disclose your reasoning. Shouldn't a person be allowed to know why they are being punished? Everyking (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Dominic: I would be perfectly happy with an expiration date, even one that envisioned a substantial timeframe; perhaps the most grating aspect of this restriction is that it is effectively a lifetime penalty, a scarlet letter that I must wear forever and ever, and it is especially grating that I am singled out for such an extreme treatment when expiration dates are almost always given to others. Everyking (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dominic

I recall very well from my service on ArbCom in 2006 how Everyking's repeated appeals can be exasperating. To some extent though, it's ArbCom's own doing. I think that we have for some reason subjected Everyking to a treatment that other arbitration parties have not had to deal with: the lack of expirations. The idea of some kind of annual appeal allowance misses the point. The reason Everyking even would need to do that is because his restrictions go on indefinitely. My opinion is that rather than considering immediate repealing of restrictions every time Everyking asks, ArbCom should have long ago passed a motion to simply set an expiration date, be it a month or a year from now, on all restrictions currently in place for Everyking. It can still renew the restrictions if the problematic behavior occurs again, of course. It's the same basic treatment nearly everyone else gets. Dominic·t 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I am not quickly locating an archive of our most recent discussion in which most of the restrictions on Everyking were lifted; could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a link to that discussion, and could a Clerk please make sure it is archived properly. My recollection, though, is that the only restriction that remains in effect is that against Everyking's interacting with Phil Sandifer. Is that correct? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paul August has been kind enough to point me to the motion we adopted earlier this year. (It probably should still be archived more prominently.) This confirms that the restriction against Everyking's interacting with Phil Sandifer ("Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner"), a ruling that is to be construed reasonably, is the only remaining restriction on Everyking that is still in effect, even though the request above repeatedly uses the plural. I am not inclined to lift this sole remaining restriction, for reasons that I do not believe it would be in anyone's interest (including Everyking's) to go into again on-wiki. No inference of any current misconduct by Everyking should be read into that position. If this matter is to be pursued further, Phil Sandifer must be advised of this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • By way of clarification of at least my vote, my position that we properly lifted all other restrictions but that there is reason to retain this one, is based on the substance of the matter and not merely on consideration of the timing or repetition of the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse on this request to ease Everyking's concerns that past arbitrators unfairly influenced past decisions about him. Hopefully, the recusal will make it easier for him to accept the decision one way or the other. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason to amend this. If Everyking has no intention of interacting with Phil Sandifer, then the restriction has a net effect of absolutely zero. If the objective is to gain permission to resume interacting with Phil, then that permission will not be forthcoming (nor is it likely that it ever will).

    If Everyking is simply hoping for a declaration that he is "an editor in good standing", then I am glad to reiterate it; that remaining restriction in now way reduces any standing he may have in the community. In fact, it would be an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past were it not for the fact that Everyking himself persistently raises it at regular intervals. — Coren (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with my colleagues. I also note that Everyking may appeal the restriction annually and July 2009 is well short of the next review date, January 2010.  Roger Davies talk 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Why so soon after the last one? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I am lost, what other sanctions are you referring to (i.e. non-phil one(s))? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll repeat what I said last time:

    "...suggest some thought is given to when and how any future appeals on this remaining sanction should be heard (i.e. to prevent excessive and repeat filings of appeals over the coming year). One other thought has just occurred to me. Despite this remedy remaining in place, would a motion saying that Everyking is a Wikipedian in "good standing" be possible or make any sense? The protection that Phil desires would still be in place, while Everyking would get his wish to be considered "in good standing"." - Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

    We didn't in the end explicitly restrict Everyking to appealing once a year, but we should have done. There are certain editors who appeal their restrictions again and again and again. In the end, they do their own cause far more damage by that, than any of the original actions could have done. Suggest a motion be proposed to set the date of the next appeal at January 2010, and once per year after that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much reiterating what others have said, the only reason anyone might be holding you to this issue is because you keep bringing it up over and over. I'm also not convinced that if this restriction were appealed, it would be the end of it. Is this appeal really just to remove this restriction and this being the end? Wizardman 21:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for amendment: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence

This page has been deleted for a year, despte Arbcom promisin to deal with it, and undelete it.

You have been promising to deal with the minor issues raised of someone having changed his name from a non-identifying nickname to another non-identifying nickname, and a page that dealt with him being sanctioned or something under the first nickname having been linked.

Since the arbcom recently saw fit to out me to my real name in their amendment to the Matthew Hoffman case, one would think that this minor issue could be dealt with soon, particularly as a different user, Dana Ullman, who was blocked for a year, has recently returned, and the documentation of all the massive problems he caused last time is going to be important in stopping him quickly should he do so again. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that's a lie. One person linked to my real name - which everyone knows now, since Arbcom revealed it, so there's no point responding. I linked to - I don't know what it was - but a RfC or sockpiuppet report or something under what the person had said was just a nick he was changing because he preferred the other one, and had no reason to think that the old nick was either identifying or meaningful. Please get your facts straight before making accusations. Furthermore, they do not go back to the start, because most of them were oversighted, and, secondly, the user in question only suddenly claimed that linking to problems he had been involved with before was outing after he had gotten blocked for it, which rather makes one think he was just trying to get people in trouble. Furthermnore, the previous request for clarification said it would be undeleted eventually. If that's not the case anymore, ten the situation isn't the same at all, and the arbcom has repeatedly lied when they assured everyone it would be dealt with. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Bainer, please stop making an accusation of bad faith on my part which you cannot back, and which I cannot even defend myself from because the page in question, showing the harmlessness of the link that accidentally outed the user in question, is deleted by the Arbcom. This is a partticularly egregious accusation, because you are well aware that the truth of the matter can only be seen by oversighters. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NYB: Several of the users in question are back, including DanaUllman. Should problems arise, I would much rather be able to point to the evidence I spent hundreds of hours preparing to show his abuse of sources and so on, rather than have to collect all the evidence over again, particularly as the ban was passed without any mention of the evidence that caused it to be passed. Unless Arbcom thinks "DanaUllman has engaged in advocacy of homeopathy on Wikipedia." - the only finding of fact about him - is sufficient without the dozens of pages of evidence that led to that decision. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


To all the arbitrators: I have asked several times that Mr. Bain withdraw his false accusation. As much of the evidence is oversighted, I would appreciate it being made very clear that this was not (or, at least, since you're not me, that there's no evidence that this was) "Tit-for-tat" or intentional outing on my part, while the other side was edit warring to reveal my name shortly after the Matthew Hoffman case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, after being e-mailed the text, I dealt with the issue in two minutes, following the suggestion of Newyorkbrad, which was also that of FloNight and a few others, as I recall, in the past. Delete it if you want, but you've been talking about doing that for 11 months now, and it's ridiculous that you spent that long complaining about how difficult it was, when it took all of two minutes to do. Now, if you'll deal with Stephen Bain's accusation we can all go home. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by Scientizzle

I reviewed the deleted page and I think I found the "outing" done by SH to which Stephen Bain refers. If this deleted revision relates to the general basis of Bain's claims, I think the reasons presented for keeping the page deleted are proverbially overstated. The user in question changed his or her name with a public request at Wikipedia:Changing username, the previous name is readily apparent in the current ID's usertalk archives, and the third most recent edit in the current userpage history tab is labeled "moved User:X to User:Y: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "X" to "Y"). I can't find a WP:RTV request by the user in question, so are we to assume the "arbcom/otrs email" cited in the deleted revision was a de facto RTV? If so, it was so poorly done as to make the prior ID of this user astonishingly easy to determine and there are a number of pages that should be deleted. If not, why is a set of public information being used to keep the evidence page deleted? Am I missing something more? — Scientizzle 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solution by MastCell

I understand that the GFDL issues are prohibitive here. The main concern on SH's part - the reason for this request - is that some parties sanctioned in the case are once again active. Should these parties repeat some of their earlier problematic behavior, it might be useful to have a record of evidence which was compiled for the previous case.

I would suggest that I, or another admin, simply email a copy of the deleted page to SH. The page doesn't need to be restored on-wiki, and an emailed, offline copy would be sufficient in terms of preserving relevant diffs and evidence should further action become necessary. I don't see that emailing the page to SH violates anyone's privacy, since he is already well aware of the account in question's identity, and as Scientizzle points out, the rename was carried out in such a way that it's not exactly hard to put 2 + 2 together if anyone cares.

I will say upfront that I'm not really familiar with the extent of privacy issues in this case. Given that, and the fact that Oversight is involved, I will not proceed with this suggestion or email anything to anyone unless I hear from the Committee that they think this approach is reasonable and respects the privacy of those concerned. MastCell Talk 17:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I should probably note, since SH has posted an emailed copy of the evidence page, that I have not emailed him. I did not consider the discussion by the Arbs below sufficient go-ahead. No opinion on whether or not it should be posted, but I thought I'd make clear that I did not email it. MastCell Talk 22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solution by Enric Naval

Ahem, I know that someone said that it was a lot of work, but could some nice arb or admin go to the deleted history of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence and delete the offending paragraphs revisions? It's not just Shoemaker's problem here, it's also that User:DanaUllman's ban has expired and people is commenting at an ANI thread bout his return without the possibility of pointing them to the evidence page so they can see what were the alleged problems.

Also, an oversighter please confirm that the other user (whoever he is) has oversighted edits outing Shoemaker, and please link to the deleted revisions so we people will not say that they don't exist.

Also, please solve this before Shoemaker hurts himself.

Also, consider telling bainer to not open the topic anymore. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.: (in reference to Carcharoth's comment) Well, let's make an author list then. Anyways, editors could only edit under their own section so it's trivial to identify what part they wrote. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Nothing has changed since the prior request for clarification. Two users - one of whom was yourself, Shoemaker's Holiday - were engaged in outing each other on the evidence page, going back to some of the earliest revisions. As MBisanz said in his comment during the last request, even putting GFDL issues aside, it's not feasible to reconstruct a coherent version of the page. There are only two findings of fact in the case, neither of which suffer egregiously from the evidence page being deleted (the statements, along with article talk pages, largely cover it), so there is no benefit to be gained substantial enough to justify expending many hours of volunteer time on such a task. --bainer (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, arbitration pages are at most courtesy-blanked rather than deleted, but if there is a need for deletion of this page, I don't see how the deletion is causing any specific ongoing harm, so I would urge the requesting party to be more specific if he wishes to pursue this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • MastCell's suggestion might be one possible solution here; another is that any administrators who might need to address issues for the returned editors can simply be pointed to the page and check the deleted revisions (I know that is not perfect, as non-admins couldn't access it, but it still seems reasonable to me so far). I will add, though, that if someone wanted to restore a redacted current version, I don't see any GFDL concern, because all the posts on an evidence page are labelled with the proposer's name anyway, so that's not an issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting here that of the current 14 arbitrators, 10 were not arbitrators in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday, when you file amendment requests to old cases, and comment on the promises or actions of past ArbComs, please bear that in mind. My view is that the evidence should be available, if some way can be found to remove what needs to be removed. Like Newyorkbrad, I don't see the GFDL concern as prohibitive. Constructing an author list is possible in this case, and this is in any case an internal page, not intended for publication. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Risker (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

Case affected
Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy "Ryulong admonished"
  2. Enforcement "Ryulong and users' identity seeking"
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

  • "Ryulong admonished" (term A)
  • From the current wording: "(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from seeking Mythdon's identity off-wiki, identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt to seek Mythdon's identity off wiki or in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;"
  • Modifying to "(A) For his behaviour off-wiki and directed to refrain from identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others. Should Ryulong engage in any attempt in disclosing any information about Mythdon, then he may be sanctioned in accordance with the enforcement provisions;""

Amendment 2

  • "Ryulong and users' identity seeking"
  • That this enforcement be terminated.

Statement by Mythdon

I am requesting an amendment to "Ryulong admonished" and the enforcement "Ryulong and users' identity seeking".

Taking a good look at the findings and evidence, there is no finding or evidence that Ryulong was seeking any users identity. Finding "Ryulong discussing the identity of Mythdon" makes no mention of identity seeking, but mentions identity discussion, if anything.

I think it is totally unjust to make a remedy on something that isn't found to had been going on—Trying to solve what is not happening. This is one of those cases. Was there a finding or any actual evidence that Ryulong sought any user personal information? No. Sam Blacketer voted against this enforcement for exactly that reason. Therefore, I request that we terminate this enforcement, and modify the admonishment to only direct Ryulong to refrain from doing what he was found to do. Note that this is not based on my personal preferences, but based on what is necessary for the cases judgment. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Casliber

Well, I am pursuing this because there is no finding of fact or evidence that Ryulong was actually seeking my identity. Arbitration remedies are to ensure that problems don't recur, not to ensure a problem never starts. It is not whether I give him permission to seek my identity, but whether the arbitration remedies serve a purpose. These do not obviously serve any purpose other than, if anything, prevent problems that have never occurred. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John Vandenberg

What I am suggesting is not to make the remedy unenforceable, but to make the remedy fair to the evidence and findings of fact. There is no evidence that Ryulong was identity seeking, which is exactly why I am here. I also have a question, one which should be at Requests for Clarification. Will Ryulong be banned if he violates "identifying personal information of Wikipedia users, and from disclosing that information to others"? I'm curious, because you make it sound so. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 3

  • Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
  • Details of desired modification

Statement by Ryulong

In response to Carcharoth, sure why not. I didn't like this restriction or whatever because it was based on the one-off instance when Mythdon was going out of his way to contact me on other websites and I merely relayed the information to another user, which was blown out of proportion by another edit that I did not make.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

  • That my editing restrictions be replaced with a restriction to have no involvement in the mass delinking of dates nor changes to WP:MOS or WP:MOSNUM (and their associated talk pages) regarding the formatting and linking of dates for a period of four months.

Statement by Greg L

What ArbCom did here with me isn’t right. Even though there were admins aplenty on WT:MOSNUM, some of whom were hip-deep in the date delinking debate, I was never once blocked for incivility towards another involved editor in the date-delinking debate, nor was I once blocked for edit-warring, sock puppetry, deleting others’ RfCs or posts, nominating others’ pages for MfDs, or any sort of *creative disruption* or malfeasance in connection with date delinking.

It is not right that ArbCom later goes in and uses a far more critical litmus test for determining who is good editor and who is a bad editor that “Wikipedia needs protection from” than was ever required of editors during the debate. The debate on WT:MOSNUM has developed a direct, “gloves-off” style where admins who frequented the associated venues didn’t see a need for a block. So it seems wrong for ArbCom to later employ a 50-power retrospectoscope, review months-old, cherry-picked “evidence” slung about by one’s adversaries, and come back not with an appropriate-length first block to wake up an editor and correct his or her behavior, but to instead issue months-long and even indefinite restrictions on a broad range of issues. Such ArbCom actions have a chilling effect, is harmful to the mood of the community, and lessens respect for Wikipedia’s institutions.

If administrators didn’t once step in to protect Wikipedia from me in connection with the date de-linking debate, then perhaps Jimbo, ArbCom, and the Bureaucrats need to huddle and think about how to modify the behavior of administrators so they start enforcing the standard of conduct ArbCom thinks is befitting Wikipedia (or better yet: what the community thinks is befitting). It is simply not right that there be two standards: one that passes for months or years with administrators who are right there watching it all and see no reason to block an editor, and yet another that ArbCom thinks ought to be the gold standard of civility—but only after a metric ton of Monday-morning quarterbacking. Greg L (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S. Having slept on the above post, I realize I should add some important points that speak to ArbCom’s thankless job and what I need to do from hereon.

    I certainly have the capacity to learn; I seldom make the same mistake twice. During the course of the date de-linking debate, I had been taken to WQA with charges of incivility. The consensus of that WQA was that the allegations were being blown out of all proportion and it was all just a “content dispute.” So nothing came of it. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia. Between this experience and the fact that no administrator ever felt the need to once block me for incivility regarding date linking (and there was a fair-minded administrator who shepherded WT:MOSNUM), I perceived that there was nothing wrong with my conduct on that issue.

    I can certainly see that ArbCom has an utterly thankless job of trying to keep Wikipedia, which is a purely collaborative writing environment, from decaying into a morass of uncivil bickering. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Osama bin Laden himself was POV‑pushing on 9/11 attacks and you gave him an indefinite ban from the article, you would be severely criticized from some quarters.

    I had gotten swept up in the wikidrama of the debate for a few months and allowed myself to assume the worst of intentions from the opponents. I promise to not allow that to happen again. Greg L (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.P.S. I have nothing further to say on this subject, Newyorkbrad. I want to go back to the unencumbered editing of science-related articles and contributing to science-related discussions on WT:MOSNUM. I have no stomach whatsoever for the backdoor quid pro quo politicking and back-scratching that can be at times helpful for editors in situations like this. Wikipedia is as much a social experience for deeply entrenched editors as it is an encyclopedia to which one can contribute. I am interested in the latter part, and hope to never get so entrenched that I can pretend to fully fathom the former. You simply have my pledge that I will be at all times civil. I am done with my editing my appeal here. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

I think that Greg will acknowledge that administrators would be wrong to block an editor with whom they are involved in conflict, so failure of those admins to block him needs to be taken in context. Nevertheless, at some point ArbCom will need to revisit the indefinite topic bans. Greg has now made a pledge not to allow himself to be caught up in drama in future, so it is pertinent to ask what sort of evidence of good behaviour, over what timeframe, might ArbCom require to rescind the indefinite topic ban? With that in mind - and considering all of the other parties who received indefinite sanctions - would the arbitrators be minded to at least reduce the breadth of some of the sanctions to areas directly related to date-delinking? If affected editors are unable to participate in a relatively normal way, it may be difficult for them to demonstrate the desired modifications to behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Motion
Brad has suggested a very reasonable amendment that should meet many of the concerns raised here, but I find it disappointing when arbitrators vote without indicating any reason. There seems be little in the "Arbitrator discussion" section that helps the reader to understand. I do appreciate that arbitrators are busy, but I would hope that the spirit of WP:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency should encourage them to be a little more forthcoming. Indeed, an understanding of the rationale behind a decision goes a long way towards avoiding repetitive requests. Again, I am grateful to Brad for indicating a timescale before further requests for amendment may be made, but I would still be interested to learn what period ought to be observed before the indefinite topic bans might be reconsidered? --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dabomb87

Like most editors, Greg deserves a second chance. He has valuable knowledge on scientific topics, on which discussions frequently arise on MOS talk pages. I will remind ArbCom that unlike other parties of the case, Greg did not engage in mainspace edit warring over date links, so the restriction on mainspace editing is a little strange. On a more practical level, I think there are two choices WRT amendments: 1) For all editors restricted from certain discussions, the scope of the restrictions is reduced to date linking/autoformatting, broadly interepreted; or 2) Greg's (also applying to other editors who are similarly restricted) topic ban is given a cut-off point, and from then on, he is put on a 0/1RR for the guidelines themselves and put on some sort of parole (not necessarily related to civility) for discussion pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony1

Per RexxS and Dabomb87. Tony (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kotniski

Support what's been written above. Why are no arbs responding to this? And why has the motion below (relating to the same case, and apparently uncontroversial) still not been passed? --Kotniski (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

Making a statement here partially to explain my recusal, and partly to comment (as an editor and admin, not an arbitrator) on the proposed amendments. Part of the reason for my recusal was because I have participated at Manual of Style talk pages in the past (though not extensively so), and am intending to do so again in the future (or as the need arises). The other part of the reason for my recusal was interactions with some of the parties to the case, so I want to keep my comments here as general as possible. But I will be frank here and state that part of the reason I disengaged from one of my forays into the Manual of Style pages was the reception I got. It is possible that I arrived at the wrong time, when tensions were running high, and I was just on the receiving end of a backlash. But the intensity of some of the feelings being expressed still surprised me, and I had little motivation to go back. Ever since then, I've been wondering how many other editors had the same experience that I had? I should have stated this on the case pages while it was open, but decided not to do so, as the evidence being presented and the outcome was (at first glance) adequate. However, now that it is being proposed that some of the restrictions be relaxed, I would like to ask (again, as a fellow editor and admin, not an arbitrator) that those parties who return to activity in some of these areas to please not let things get to the stage again where the environment becomes off-putting to editors (both experienced and new) who arrive at the talk pages of the Manual of Style. I might not have time to participate there, but I would hope that anyone who did would find that the atmosphere was a lot more welcoming and less acrimonious. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further points

In addition to the above, I'd also like to ask if the arbitration committee could clarify a few points about this amendment.

  • (1) Could there be a list of all the remedies and parties this proposed amendment applies to, and could they all be notified? For reference, there were 32 remedies. I think the only ones the proposal does not apply to are: the one that has already been amended (for User:John), the Arthur Rubin admonishment, the Locke Cole ban, the Kotniski reminder, the The Rambling Man admonishment, the Ohconfucius limitation to one account, the Ohconfucius automation limitation, the Lightmouse restriction to one account, the Lightmouse automation prohibition, the Lightmouse ban, the Date delinking bots remedy, and the "mass date delinking is restricted for six months" remedy. That is 12 remedies, leaving the other twenty (20) remedies that this amendment would affect, and which concern sixteen (16) users. I really do think it would be clearer what is happening here if the new and old remedies were written out side-by-side for each party (one of the remedies expires in about a month, for example).
  • (2) The proposal states that "all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision" were considered. There are five such appeals (excluding this one) listed on the talk page of the case. I believe that all except one have been addressed by this proposal. Brad, can I ask if you re-considered the ban appeal made on behalf of Locke Cole and decided not to include that in this proposal?
  • (3) On re-reading the decision, I noticed "Stability review 3.1) If the Manual of style has not stabilised within three months after the close of the case, the committee will open a review of the conduct of the parties engaged in this battle and hand out permanent MOS bans to any parties who have actively prevented the manual of style stabilising on a version that has broad community consensus." - are there any plans to reset the date for this assessment for stability in light of the proposed relaxation of restrictions? Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

Motion

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";
(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";
(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;
(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.
There are 12 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.
Support:
  1. Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen Carcharoth's statement and some of the points made by him and others should be addressed and perhaps clarified. Unfortunately, because of offline commitments, I will not be able to do so in any detail until Thursday evening or Friday. My apologies for this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Those remedies were drafted broadly to make certain that the dispute, which was long lasting and acrimonious, did not spill in other areas of style. I am not fundamentally opposed to their being focused more tightly, but I should point out that there will be very little patience towards renewed hostilities. — Coren (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'll let the other arbs handle this. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse
  1. But have entered a statement above. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification?

Does that mean I would no longer be "prohibited from editing policy pages related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page"? I was the only party so restricted. Tony (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was meant to be picked up in "(or any similar wording)", once I decided to make the wording of the motion generic rather than incorporate a list of usernames. Of course, we'll see what the other arbitrators have to say about my proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To make that second sentence true, can you encourage your fellow arbs to explain the reasons for their votes (particularly any opposes, since the reasons in favour of this change have been set out ad nauseam)?--Kotniski (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick point for overworked arbs: a highly significant technical matter (image sizes) is under consideration at MoS talk. It is not a particularly personal or controversial debate, delightfully. Greg L is covered by the blanket topic ban on styleguide talk pages; yet he has potentiallyl valuable input. He wants to post this, but cannot, and I can hardly post it for him, lest I be guilty of the back-door breaching of a remedy:
"A default for thumbnails of 180 is too small. Also, pictures with less-than-typical aspect ratios (such as twice as wide as tall) end up being way too small. Portrait-orientation pictures tend to be too big. I often have many pictures and they tend to walk all over each other unless I stagger their placements left and right and/or force the size issue. Kilogram uses a mix of thumbnails and forced."
It is frustrating that the project can't benefit from such input, which has absolutely nothing to do with date linking; Greg has already shown (and declared) that he's intent on playing the civility game. Thus, I urge arbs to consider narrowing the ambit of the remedy in question, as embodied in NYBrad's motion, which would focus the remedy on "protecting the project". Tony (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to point out that the motion will result in an increase in the restriction on me. It is very odd that at this stage, without evidence of anything but utter compliance with the remedy that applies to me, that I should be subject to a harsher restriction in any area. Is there evidence of damage or potential damage to the project under Remedy 9.3 that ArbCom decided on for me? 9.3 did not restrict me from discussing any issue, although uniquely I was banned from editing policy and template pages related to article and editing style (as a kind of quid pro quo, I guess). That is, ArbCom decided that I should not be restricted WRT discussing date linking/unlinking. Now, it appears, I will be further restricted by not being able to discuss date linking/unlinking.

It's not that there is much discussion on that topic nowadays, but I have gone out of my way to comply with the remedy and with all policies and guidelines of WP, and a further restriction, without explanation, seems to be arbitrary and unproductive: in what way will the project be protected by banning me from such discussion from August 2009 onwards? I have raised this matter at NYB's talk page, but he is off-wiki until Friday. Tony (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right, Tony. It cannot be right that everyone else's restrictions are becoming fewer and yours are becoming greater when you do not seem to have been doing ANYTHING remotely controversial. I do hope the Arbs take note of that, and modify the amendment accordingly, or perhaps better if another amendment was drafted to cover your particular case. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But, on further reflection, it probably means that Remedy 9.3 ("Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page.") is modified to: "Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates".
In addition, I presume that if this motion passes, the parties may edit, for example, MOSNUM, MoS and WP:LINK except for the parts dealing with "the linking or unlinking of dates"—and that the modified remedy would not involve the whole of those guidelines, just because they partly cover the linking and unlinking of dates.
I would be grateful if both presumptions were confirmed or otherwise. Tony (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=306196453"