Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Tiptoety (Talk) & Amorymeltzer (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren (Talk)

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

Coren
Kirill Lokshin
KnightLago
Mailer diablo
Newyorkbrad
Risker
Rlevse
Roger Davies
Shell Kinney
SirFozzie
Steve Smith

Inactive:

Carcharoth
FayssalF
Hersfold
Wizardman

Recuse:

Cool Hand Luke

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

"Principles" and "Findings of fact" sections

Overall, very good. I don't understand the purpose of the second sentence here, though (from "Proposed principles"):

4) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

CoM's outbursts regarding content are all about furthering the goals of the first sentence. The second sentence is not about anything in evidence or alleged against CoM in terms of behavioral violations. I don't understand what the purpose is of including that sentence unless you're implying that CoM is carrying on some kind of "ideological struggle". Some of his enemies/critics might allege that, but -- so what? I don't know of any evidence for it or serious allegations of it here. He's here solely for the way he makes his statements and the attacks on other editors. We all have a personal POV (it comes with the heartbeat and the belly button); we're simply not supposed to have the encyclopedia favor that POV. I know of no allegation that he's done so. "Political or ideological struggle" means POV pushing, not interacting badly with people you disagree with. That's simply incivility and personal attacks and the content of the dispute simply is irrelevant. ArbCom should not look politically biased, particularly in this case.

Also, to go out of order, #1 in "Proposed principles", Coren's comment:

This applies whether the aspersions are directed at specific users or at users unnamed; painting other editors with a wide brush does not make personal attacks any more acceptable.

Please rethink that. If I said "half of ArbCom is a passle of idiots" it harms no one. If I said "Wikipedia is full of strange birds" it wouldn't hurt a fly, and even if I said, "There seem to be a bunch of POV pushers on this page", the most that can be said is that it wouldn't be helpful (although in some circumstances it actually might be). A "personal attack" is personal. I just took a look at WP:NPA and it's all about attacking individuals. The only time "at users unnamed" can be a personal attack is if the unnamed can be figured out. You might justify this with WP:DISRUPTION, which is so rubbery you can stretch it to cover anything. But it's still a weak reed to try to base a comparison between a personal attack and one on "users unnamed".

From "Proposed findings of fact", #1, Coren's comment:

Proposed as typical, but I remain unconvinced of the propriety of leading findings with what amounts to a panegyric of the parties. The duration, quantity or quality of an editor's contribution in no way mitigates what misbehavior may have taken place, and is only rarely relevant to Arbitration proceedings.

The best reason for including that kind of thing in a finding of fact is because you're not dealing with an "editor" or a "user", you're dealing with a person. On a page which may be read years from now. It's got nothing to do with mitigation or relevance to the decision, but to the individual's relationship with Wikipedia as a whole. Think big picture. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent catches by JohnW in terms of drilling down into the proposed decision, and for what they are worth here are my thoughts on the three points he raised (rized?) above:

Like JohnWBarber I have a problem with the second sentence of this proposed principle (numero 4 as it relates to this case). Personally I do think there is an element of "political or ideological struggle" to ChildofMidnight's behavior on Wikikipedia (which is to say more so than on average), but that has not been detailed in evidence and I do not see it as something worth alluding to in the proposed decision. In large part this is because I do not think it is the determining factor in terms of some of the problems with ChildofMidnight.
I disagree with John here and do believe that these kind of "wide brush" accusations violate the spirit if not the letter of WP:CIV. The phrase "half of ArbCom is a passle of idiots" is an interesting example, and not only because half of ArbCom does not know what "passel" means (damn you idiots! :-) ). Much more importantly it is one of those seemingly off-the-cuff, who-gives-a-damn type of comments that usually means nothing in isolation precisely because it is non-specific. But when repeated over and over again, this kind of "pox on this one big house with a bunch of people living in it but I won't name them" statement is indeed a "personal attack" on unnamed fellow contributors. That kind of thing ought not be kosher.
I agree strongly with JohnW regarding proposed FOF #1 and recommend that Coren seriously rethink his opposition to this finding. It is not merely "panegyric of the parties," it is a simple (yet very important) statement about the contributions another human being made to the en.wikipedia project. Even if we assume (I think wrongly) that 25% of ChildofMidnight's edits were problematic, that leaves 30,000 good edits to this project. Even if a lot of that was trivial (as for anyone) much else was good work on encyclopedia articles that no else was doing. There is no need to cheapen that by voting against a fairly boilerplate finding that says, at base, "thanks for being a valuable volunteer and contributor." People who "edit" here, no matter how disruptive or problematic, are indeed people; and it's extremely worthwhile for the committee to complement them on good work even while chiding them for behavior that damages the project. It would be difficult for me to overemphasize this point.

Otherwise I think this is pretty fair as a proposed decision sans remedies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same order,

Principle 4 is worded as usual; I admit that the last statement applies less to this case than it does in some others but we'be been expending some care in trying to remain consistent in our basic principles from case to case and "furthering conflicts" doesn't seem off-point.
Part of the reason I kept the "broad strokes" off the text of the principle and into my comment is because it's not as hard boiled as our prohibition against directed personal attacks. It is my own take on collegiality and working environment, and while it throws some light on my own votes and my own view of the case, it's not per se sanctionable behavior on its own (though, I suppose, it could be brought to such an extreme that even isolation it could become so).
There are a number of reasons I've generally systematically opposed such findings, even when they generally pass, not the least of which is that they make no sense in context. Every party to a case is, frankly, presumed to be a positive contributor to the encyclopedia and "ranking them" is neither useful nor desirable. Besides, when was the last time one could read "Good driver that always makes they mandatory stops, but..." on a speeding ticket? — Coren ^(talk) 11:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FOF 1, Coren's misgivings are well founded. Commendations at arbitration tend to backfire. Editors who receive them have been known to leverage them politically by implying they amount to an official stamp of approval or friends in high places (at least one person who did so later had to be indefinitely blocked). Other times arbitration commendations amount to damning with faint praise. If an editor's beneficial volunteer work deserves consideration in a proposed decision, the meaningful way to demonstrate that is by crafting a remedy that allows those beneficial contributions to continue. Durova⁴¹² 18:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy #2

May I suggest that remedy #2 is amended to allow CoM to nominate articles on T:TDYK? His behavior there has not as far as I know been problematic, and the proposed decision itself commends him for his DYK contributions. Ucucha 14:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm admittedly a little leery of poking holes in the restriction (as a rule, the more exception there are the more disputed and gameable a remedy becomes); I'm more receptive to a gradual relaxation of the remedy as time progresses. I'll consider it, and some of my colleagues may propose something along those lines themselves. — Coren ^(talk) 14:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point that you want to avoid the remedy becoming too complex, but in this case the "hole" would be as simple as adding one page, Template talk:Did you know, to the list of pages he is allowed to edit. I don't see how that is gameable in any way. Ucucha 15:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is not unreasonable given his participation there. I see no disputes or behavioral problems there either at first glance, so I'll add it since no other arb has yet begun voting. — Coren ^(talk) 15:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ucucha 18:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 2 has an obvious loophole: 2) ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited - so any time he wants to edit a talk page, he can just make a trivial edit to the article. This is equivalent to no restriction on talk pages at all William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant to prevent access to article talk pages in general, but to change the "default": our collaborative process requires the ability to discuss edits on the talk pages, and restricting it to talk pages of articles where "substantial" edits were made is subject to (mis)interpretation, lawyering and disputes. In practice, I would expect the community (and committee!) would react very poorly if some trivial edit is made to an article as a pretext to jump into a discussion on its talkpage. — Coren ^(talk) 17:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the traditional civility parole hasn't worked in situations like this one. This is simpler than what I proposed, and simplicity has its merits. Nonetheless, this is a gag rule. It is structured so that all appeals of the gag rule fold back upon the same body that imposed the gag rule in the first place. That is inherently problematic on a project whose functioning relies upon open discussion. To speak in general terms, the danger with gag rules is that people in positions of power have been known to silence legitimate criticism of themselves. What safeguards are to be set in place to prevent the possible misuse of gag rules on Wikipedia? Durova⁴¹² 19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is an indisputable way around this. Even if we constructed some sort of appellate body, it too would swiftly end up being labeled as part of the "establishment", and deemed no more trustworthy than ArbCom itself. In practice, ArbCom as it exists today is sufficiently diverse that the genuine probability that a real self-interested decision or that legitimate dissent would be systematically suppressed undetected is insignificant.

In practice, for the remedy in question, it mostly constrains where that criticism can be aired — and I would fully expect that any legitimate complaint would be quickly picked up and relayed loudly by a number of editors. The remedy wasn't constructed to prevent criticism, but to prevent it from disrupting the normal editing and community processes. — Coren ^(talk) 19:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problems inherent to self-review predate this arbitration case. People have been known to groan when they find out how BASC is constituted. The instances that are most worthy of independent review may themselves be the ones that are least likely to seek broad attention, due to sensitive issues and real world names. A system whose only safety valve is public outcry is inherently flawed: the individuals who preferentially seek the overturn of their sanctions by that means are the least likely to deserve that sanctions be lifted. Coren, I can see only one productive outcome from your reasoning: someday it may be necessary to quote "I would fully expect that any legitimate complaint would be quickly picked up and relayed loudly by a number of editors". I don't look forward to that day, but if it's going to happen it's very useful to have such a candid sound bite available. Thank you for that. Durova⁴¹² 21:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FoF3 (3a? 4?)

It talks about the RFCU in present tense. Also, it's the second second numbered 3.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My numbering was clearly broken (fixed), but I don't see improper use of present tense? "[...] has been [...] and refused" reads right to me. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sarek means the part saying "it is "strongly suggested that..." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, not "present tense" -- it's been too long since English class. :-) "Has been", to me, implies that the RFCU is ongoing. "Was" is the tense I would expect to see. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be ESL woes, but I don't see it. My understanding is that "has been" (as opposed to was) is the proper form to mark progressive aspect but makes no implication that it continues to the present? — Coren ^(talk) 18:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or should that have been "was being"? That sounds off to me, but might have been better? — Coren ^(talk) 18:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I vote tonight or tomorrow I may take the liberty of doing some light copy-editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

As currently written remedy two makes it verboten for ChildofMidnight to edit any user talk pages except his own. I do think something like this is needed, but I also think we need to leave room for some exceptions, though I understand the concern expressed by Coren above in terms of trying to avoid creating holes in the restrictions. Nonetheless I think something along the lines of what Durova proposed here in the workshop could work. There are a number of editors who would be happy to receive talk page messages from ChildofMidnight and I see no reason to restrict that. Also as I mentioned when commenting on Durova's proposal, allowing no talk page posts would put ChildofMidnight in a bind if he was working on an article and saw some comments or edits from another editor which led him to want to ask them a question (I proposed a standard, "do you mind if I post to your page?" query for situations like this). Under the current formulation ChildofMidnight would also not be able to consult editors with expertise about content questions as he recently did here for example, and I don't think preventing questions like that helps anyone. To my mind we do need a user talk page restriction if we are restricting C of M from certain parts of the project, but I think it needs to be more flexible than the current one or we end up hindering some of ChildofMidnight's useful encyclopedia work. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is on purpose. Part of the pattern I have observed is the tendency of ChildofMidnight to spread disputes widely, and often to talk pages of other users. A mechanism to allow editors to allow (and rescind!) permission to CoM to edit their talk pages is troublesome, open to disputes, and — frankly — unlikely to be beneficial enough to be worth the trouble. Add to this the increased complexity in enforcement, the difficulty for uninvolved editors to properly gauge what is and is not appropriate (and, indeed, to even figure out that a list of allowed pages exists) and I can find little to commend such an intricate system.

At this point, CoM has very nearly worn out his welcome; it's reasonable to offer a restricted method for him to continue to contribute if at all possible, but the cost to the community at large needs to be low enough to avoid adding to past disruption. Yes, it does mean that his hands will be somewhat tied and there will be some inconvenience to him; but that's a cost that needs to be borne by him and not distributed to the rest of the editing community.

Once CoM has spent some time concentrating on editing and — hopefully — reined in a bit his tendency to lash out at those he disagrees with, we can discuss the gradual loosening of editing restrictions. — Coren ^(talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. Perhaps another option would be a version of the "screened editing" discussed at the Workshop. ChildofMidnight could be allowed to post at the talk page of one administrator agreed upon in advance by the committee (the admin would have to volunteer obviously). If C of M needed to talk to someone he would post there, and if the comment was appropriate the admin would proxy it to the appropriate user talk page on ChildofMidnight's behalf. The user who had been contacted could then proceed to ChildofMidnight's talk page for discussion or simply ignore the message and that would be the end of it. I really don't think this would be a problem or too labyrinthine so long as we have a willing admin (the burden would basically all be on them rather than on the community or ArbCom), and it would take care of my concerns. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, that can already be arranged within the confines of the remedy as it exists; there is nothing that prevents what you discuss from taking place on CoM's talk page, or a suitable subpage of it which anyone is welcome to watch. The point is to prevent uninvited conversations, not agreed upon ones. — Coren ^(talk) 20:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the intent in terms of preventing uninvited conversations, but I don't think the current remedy is sufficient to allow for agreed-upon conversations. Most people will not watchlist C of M's talk page or a subpage so if he posts a question for someone the odds are good that person will never know about it (it could easily be a question for someone who has never interacted with C of M before). Having an admin proxy just gives ChildofMidnight a way to say "hey, would you mind coming over to my talk page so we can discuss something?" Actually to make it even more simple C of M could post a comment for someone on his talk page and then we could have the admin leave a talk-back message or something similar for the person with whom ChildofMidnight wanted to communicate. I hope you will consider putting this up as an additional proposed remedy or including it as a component of the existing one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If some variant on this were accepted, I volunteer to be such a proxy (assuming my acceptability to both CoM and the ArbComm). LadyofShalott 21:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be simpler to allow CoM to post talkback templates, and only talkback templates, on other users' talk pages. The other user could respond or not: no response means no more messages. Users could of course give CoM permission to use their pages. This is speedier than the first suggestion and keeps third parties out of the line of fire. PhGustaf (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that too. I think it's probably better though if ChildofMidnight simply is not allowed to post on user talk pages. I can foresee situations where he would post the template but also a quick note like "hi by the way" or something, which would then lead to an annoying discussion as to whether this violated the restrictions or not. Also the advantage of an admin intermediary would be that if C of M posted an attack type note on his talk page and wanted someone else to see it, the admin could refuse to pass along the message and indeed ask C of M to remove the comment on his talk page. Also the simple fact is someone would probably have to be "policing" all of these talk page talkback messages to make sure that's all they were, and I don't think that's desirable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I meant, simply enough, that any such admin is welcome to watchlist some agreed upon subpage of ChildofMidnight's talk page and be willing to act as intermediary without any requirement to allow an exception to the restriction which can remain simply worded and with few holes. For instance, I would see no reason why LadyofShalott could not do exactly that since she has so gratiously offered. — Coren ^(talk) 23:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, sorry for misreading you there. That makes sense and seems like a very workable solution which obviates the need for any change to the proposed decision. LadyofShalott has already left ChildofMidnight a note about this on his talk page, so if the second remedy is the one that is passed hopefully they can work something out. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a ban

So far there is fairly strong support among some of the Arbs for a one year ban, which I guess is understandable given the evidence. However there seemed to be a decent consensus at the workshop (including among some editors like me who have been quite critical of ChildofMidnight's behavior) that it would be worthwhile to at least try a restriction that fell short of banning. I'm curious as to why arbitrators supporting a ban feel that a lesser remedy is not worthwhile, particularly as this is the first ArbCom case to focus solely (or even primarily) on ChildofMidnight's behavior.

I think there is some similarity here to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse (I'm not very familiar with that and apparently things recently ended badly with that user) though Mattisse's content contributions were arguably at a higher level (on the other hand the disruption seems to have perhaps been worse). Efforts were made to work with Mattisse to restrict activities rather than banning. Is the difference perhaps that Mattisse took some initiative in terms of a "plan" whereas ChildofMidnight has basically ignored this entire case? If so maybe an arb or a clerk should leave a note for ChildofMidnight saying he is likely heading for a year-long ban if he does not work with the committee a bit and "sign on" (i.e. acknowledge its validity and necessity) to a remedy like the second one offered by Coren. Obviously we only ban contributors as a last resort and would prefer not to take that step as a general rule. Frankly ChildofMidnight has not been up against the wall like this before, and it's possible he'll adjust his style and/or stick to a tight set of restrictions (perhaps grudgingly) in order to be allowed to continue to edit.

I hope the Arbs will make some allowance for that possibility and perhaps reach out directly to ChildofMidnight in a "this is your last chance" sort of fashion now that we are in the final stages of the case. As one who has been on the receiving end of uncivil comments from ChildofMidnight as much or more than anyone here, I continue to think it's worthwhile to attempt to retain him as a contributor to the project. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I'm certain that ChildofMidnight's current attitude towards the case is likely to play in his disfavor (in particular, NewyorkBrad has stated that he was hoping for some effort, or at last some acknowledgment on his part).

However, as far as us "reaching out", that's probably not appropriate. For one, he has a poor relationship with many (most?) of the arbs and rarely takes kindly to our attempts to communicate, and such appeals are generally more likely to be successful when they come from editors that are already on relatively friendly terms. But besides that, the general propriety of arbitrators intervening directly with an editor currently facing sanctions is iffy at best. — Coren ^(talk) 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW ChildofMidnight seems to be aware of the goings on. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, sadly, in that thread he expounds on how the impending result of this case is the result of "hateful pettiness", and abusive bullying. Since he remains convinced that he is a victim and refuses to acknowledge even the possibility that his own behavior is even partly at fault, I can understand why many of my colleagues feel a ban is the only option left. — Coren ^(talk) 15:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that comment is the exact opposite of what we would hope to see from ChildofMidnight at this point. I still think a restriction is worth trying, though I too see why most of the Arbs are supporting a ban at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments in voting on the remedies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom's original brief was for cases like this. An editor is considered valuable by the community but persists in highly destructive behavior of a kind that actively destroys all attempts to move towards reconciliation. The community is paralysed by its respect for the editor's excellent contributions and cannot agree on community sanctions, so it is left to the Committee to step up and draw the line. There are no complex policy considerations here, just a determination that an editor's valuable contributions do not excuse the intractable problems he creates. --TS 17:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of harrassment and inappropriate sysop behavior

Since the workshop contains several rather vague gestures towards alleged harrassment and sysop abuse[1] [2], I hope the Committee will consider investigating the allegations. If a ban results it will leave a nasty taste in the mouth, and it would be as well to forestall further bad blood by honestly investigating the allegations. --TS 17:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. You know as well as I or anyone that those allegations don't have a leg to stand on; that is a primary aspect of this case here, the "casting aspersions" on other editors without the accompanying proof/diffs/evidence/citations. The burden of proof in this lies squarely on ChildofMidnight, he knows full well where to file such requests but has failed to do so, ever. It should not be on ArbCom's shoulders to initiate investigation based on vague hand-waving allegations of "abuse". Tarc (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly convinced that an honest look at the allegations (which I think I'm correct in describing as vague) will show that they're unhelpful and not based in fact. The Committee should be forward-looking and should therefore seek to forestall further bad blood by performing due diligence in assessing the allegations, so that it cannot be said in future that allegations were raised but were ignored by arbcom. In particular, I think the absence of anything in the evidence page to support these vague but persistent allegations should be noted in the decision. --TS 17:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree pretty strongly with Tony here, but don't think there's a need to initiate an investigation or anything like that, rather the Arbs can make a simple ruling. While no real evidence was presented, workshop proposals were made by Ncmvocalist which suggested there were various administrators who were in part to blame for the problems with ChildofMidnight, and obviously ChildofMidnight continues to make accusations that others are responsible for his difficulties. I'm not sure that the committee can make a blanket finding of fact that those allegations are completely incorrect, but they certainly can include a finding of fact that they are unsubstantiated and that no effort was made to substantiate them via evidence. Not only does it show that the committee at least considered these accusations, it also does a service to those who have been accused by saying, at the least, "this is not remotely proven." Probably a good thing to add to the decision as a basic matter of fact should any issues come up in the future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point late in the case, with most active arbitrators having already voted, it's probably not worth the delay to the case to write a negative finding. That being said, I did look into the allegations as I drafted the decision up and in the rare cases where they are specific enough to check, they do not match the readily verifiable facts. — Coren ^(talk) 22:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading the proposed decision as voted on so far I think it shows a good appreciation of where the accusations originate and why they are made. This is a stubborn and uncooperative Wikipedian who does not handle criticism well. I agree that speed is important (I recommended a motion). Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 00:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 2?

A couple of questions regarding Remedy 2). A note at the top of the "Remedies" section says "Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated." The votes on remedy 2 seem to suggest that it should run consecutively to remedy 1) but the text of remedy 2) daoes not explicitly say so. Also, Remedy 2) does not have a specified expiration date (one year, two years, or whatever). Do the committee members really mean the editing restriction in remedy 2) to be permanent? That sounds a bit too draconian... Nsk92 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does specify that "This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban."; but you note properly that it doesn't have a set duration. In some cases, it is evident that the nature of the problem is not time bound: what is needed is for a change of attitude. This can happen quickly or not, but if it didn't happen after 11 months, say, then the chances of a sudden change of heart at the stroke of midnight at the end of the 12th month is remote indeed.

Rather, the restriction remains in place only as long or briefly as is effectively required. — Coren ^(talk) 18:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since CoM would be prohibited from editing the Arbitration pages under this remedy, I gather that he would need to email the committee if he wants to appeal the restriction at some point. Is that correct? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the easiest way, although someone else would also be quite permitted to forward a request on RFaR on his behalf (in particular, a number of editors have offered to serve as "filters"). Alternately, emailing a clerk for help in making an amendment request would also work.

In practice, however, we would not create a catch-22 by requiring ChildofMidnight to request an exemption in order to be allowed to request an exemption. A good faith request for a loosening of the restriction on RFaR (provided his ban was over) would not be looked as violating the restriction. In fact, it would probably be a good idea to add that in general on the amendment request page: unless someone has been explicitly barred from posted to RFaR, making a request on one's own behalf for appeal should always be allowed by default, if only out of basic fairness. — Coren ^(talk) 02:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]