Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:55, 26 June 2009

cs interwiki request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove cs interwiki cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor from the header for WP:RFARB subpage to not connect Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor with WP:RFARB here.

There is mess in interwikis in between languages - they are not matching procedural steps in arbitration. Not just english wikipedia has different pages and subpages for individual procedural steps.

This particular header Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Misplaced Pages (see), but this header (and so the WP:Arbitration/Requests page display it) is now containing interwiki for the main arbitration site (czech counterpart of WP:Arbitration). The interwiki for czech request arbitration page would be suitable here (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž) , however that interwiki is already present at the end of page body of WP:RFARB. It results in two different cs: interwikis being generated in the interwikis list in WP:Arbitration/Requests. From those two iws, the one in header (here) is the wrong one.

Sumed: I ask to remove cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor interwiki from here. Or optionally to replace it here with cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž (and clean then the ":cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž" from WP:RFARB)

Note: It seems to me that the another interwikis here have the same problem, for they all go to the main arbitration sites of respective wikis, but I am not familiar with their overall procedural structure there (they may or may not discriminate between WP:RFARB and WP:ARB like cs and en wikis do). --Reo 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Thank You Martin. So I did follow You and did remove the remaining cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž interwiki from WP:RFARB body.

Now I am sure that the :es: interwikis are in the same situation like the cs interwikis were. Here in the header is interwiki pointing to WP:ARB, at the same time the correct one for WP:RFARB is simultaneously at the bottom of the WP:RFARB.

Moreover there are two more iws, the azerbaijany and Russian iw's. They should be here in the header as well. Sorry for bothering again. And thank You. (I just came to solve the cs, but, seeing this, it's better fix all)

So the es: should be replaced here, and other two moved from WP:RFARB to WP:RFARB/Header --Reo 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, yes, it is confusing ;) But now it is still much better then before, thank you. Basically the confusion is why we are here. There was quite a mess. The only remaining part, where I can navigate are those two :ru: interwikis. Of those two - the ] does not belong here, it belongs to WP:ARB.

After some time, it will need some update, becouse we will see what the interwiki robots will do with it on the other sites (as it was this way, there was bot confusion cross-languages, confusion between wp:ARB and wp:RFARB in all languages) Reo 18:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection so you should be able to maintain these interwikis yourself now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I will do just few languages per day. It is quite difficult. Going through googletranslate (with and without translations) and I need to follow rather more links coming fromthose pages to verify that I interpreted the meaning of those pages pretty well.

• One note to slowenian case. It seems that they had one before, but due to their internal processes they modified it to mediation process - they renamed the page and deleted the link. Google translation of the deletion log. Reo 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Unblanking Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines

As Alastair Haines seems to have a continuing habit of ignoring his RfA sanctions (See his 1st and 2nd arbitration enforcement requests as well as his block log), it would be quite useful to actually have access to his RfA (without having to dig it out of the history every time). I understand that it is often a courtesy to blank RfAs for editors who use their real names. However, I don't think we should be paying a courtesy to someone who isn't interested in respecting their RfA, and indeed is probably benefiting from its inaccessibility. Thus, I would like to request that his RfA be unblanked, so that it is easier to access and cite when necessary. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We wear the white hats around here. Unless its gone beyond "being a pain" to actually harming someone, leave it blanked.--Tznkai (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Application for taking part in J&S guidelines discussion - any progress?

Sixteen days ago, this application was filed. Since the Arbcom imposed a 14-day time limit on itself in this decision, I wonder if there has been any progress made? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A motion to allow this has been declined. — Coren  00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To stifle speculation (and to aid future researchers of nationalist bias on Misplaced Pages), it would be helpful with a statement to clarify on what formal grounds it was declined. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently my application wasn't declined at all:

"There wasn't a single rationale but it might be helpful at this point to explain that the motion was drafted in general terms. How the committee reacts to individual applications – accompanied perhaps by a summary of what the editor intends to say, along with assurances of good conduct and promises to avoid inflammatory rhetoric – is an entirely different matter."

I've added the requested statements to my application (reposted below):

OK, I apply again then, this time with an explicit assurance of good conduct and a promise to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. A summary of what I intend to say: In the event of a resurgence of the no-sources-needed let's-override-bothersome-policies-with-consensus tendencies that have plagued us in the past, I intend to insist on compliance with WP policies and guidelines and on backing up claims with sources. Otherwise I intend to remain basically silent, because I'm still in the process of catching up on my regular job after the hundreds of hours I put into the ArbCom J&S case. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Appeals process

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• FT2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by FT2

With the "Appeals" section gone, it might help to clarify what route users wishing to appeal a Arbitration Committee remedy or enforcement should take. Or was the removal inadvertent? I'm thinking about users such as Everyking, Tango etc who have had cases whose restrictions or rulings (as opposed to bans) they wish to appeal. I'm fairly sure those aren't intended to be handled off-wiki, and yet "Amendments" doesn't state they should be posted there either. Clarification required, please? Thanks.

(If this has been addressed elsewhere or doesn't need a clarification, please just fix any instructions which need to show it, and remove this request.)

FT2  12:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Question by Rootology

I was meaning to ask why we don't just toss up a nice pretty and small "global" header template (the sort that goes dead center, up top) on each of these main RFAR pages so that people just know where to go for what? rootology (C)(T) 05:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I suppose there should be another section of this page for "appeals", although honestly the page has become more than complicated enough already. For that matter, we should probably distinguish between an appeal from another individual or body to us ("User:X appealed his block by Admin:Y to the ArbCom") and a request that we reconsider, update, or vacate one of our own rulings, even though we have typically used the term to refer to the latter as well ("Desysopped Admin:Z can seek return of the tools through a new RfA or an appeal to this Committee"). In any event, unless and until someone confuses me by reformatting the page again, a user with an appeal can file it under new cases or clarifications or amendments or whatever; we will see it in any event. But given that the result of a successful appeal is to change the outcome of the prior decision, I suppose that "Requests for amendment" is the most logical of the current choices. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Per preceding, amendment I feel is the logical and best term and place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann AND Ancient Egyptian race controversy

I have been enforcing elements of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann over the last day, and it strikes me that it either needs more teeth, or Ancient Egyptian race controversy needs a level of protection or editing sanctions that are not currently applied to it. The basic problem here appears that there are two camps of editors who disagree about what the actual subject of Ancient Egyptian race controversy should be about. Now, since I have taken only administrative action on this article, I am not going to weigh in on what the correct subject of the page is (even though I do, indeed, have an opinion). The reason for this is that the above referenced ArbCom case only really provided the ability to act against disruptive editing. What is also needed, however, is a statement on the actual subject of the article. In other words "Ancient Egyptian race controversy IS about XYZ, and any editors who seek to change the article so that it is about ABC are engaging in disruptive editing". Without this key piece, the article is just going to jerk back and forth ad infinitum.

Currently relevant discussions can presently be found:

• AN/I
• Fringe theories noticeboard
• Article talk page

It looks like this goes back years, and since the protection is currently in place for only one month, it would seem reasonable to have a process for resolving the issue which does not include constantly locking down the page and blocking people. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Under article probation you can ban all the editors in both camps from editing the article and/or the talk page as well. Sometimes giving everyone a forced vacation will allow other people to work on the article, or the parties will get together and realize its better to cooperate than be topic-banned. Arbom will not rule on content, including the proper subject of the article. An RFC would be the normal way to settle the content question. Behavior problems can be settled by banning the problematic editors from editing the article. Thatcher 04:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A request

Jehochman included me as a party in his request. I do not want to be a party of this. Can you please remove me from the list? Do you have any rules that define who must be a party? I was not a subject of any editing restrictions or sanctions in Diguwren case.Biophys (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a party to a case is mostly a way to say that you are somehow involved, and to ensure that you are notified of the progression of the case. It doesn't change your status with respect to potential sanctions; the committee traditionally reviews everyone involved in a case whether they are official parties or not. Nathan 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That is understood. I was notified about the case. Can you now remove me from this list? If not, can you please give me any links to relevant wikipedia policies? I would like to be removed.Biophys (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, you're clearly involved in the battling and edit warring and were involved in the three recent threads requesting enforcement. It is appropriate for you to be listed as a party. Shell 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion. I asked about the official rules. Can anyone answer please?Biophys (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. If you take a look at the instructions for opening a case, folks opening a case are asked to list as parties anyone who is involved. This isn't any kind of an indication that you are to blame or have done anything improper, simply that you have been involved in the issues being discussed. This is why two of the admins who have dealt with the threads on AE are also listed. Also, you might find the page Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_guide helpful to understanding the process. Shell 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Does it mean that everyone can add any new users at will: , but no one can remove users from the list?Biophys (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Pointless bickering in AE threads...

... is a problem in the recent Eastern Europe cases. Does anybody object to adopting the rule against threaded discussion as in WP:RFAR on this board? I.e., one statement per user, and any threaded dicussion belongs on the talk page.  Sandstein  20:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not pointless bickering. It's the clubbing/shielding/complaint backlog dilemma. Possibly also crudism. Durova 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this is a good situation to develop new solutions to those problems? Jehochman 23:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I really like the idea Sandstein. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't find the back and forth helpful to deciding what to do and its often distracting from the issue. Many of these issues are complex enough already. Shell 00:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. It is annoying when people ask questions or make challenges and we cannot respond to them directly. Moving such commentary to the talk page allows for threaded discussion, and keeps crud out of the way. Jehochman 00:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(comments refactored, below)

I think you've missed the point entirely - continuing personal or content disputes on AE isn't appropriate and I for one would like to see that habit curbed. We don't care about the bickering, the fighting and the endless accusations without evidence. If all editors could be trusted to factually and without emotion state their viewpoint with appropriate diffs then there wouldn't be a need for this discussion. Allowing a statement instead of threaded discussion allows open participation without encouraging continued fighting. I don't know where in this you see admins being recruited or allowing themselves to become part of a conflict; wikipedia processes evolve over time. Shell 01:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I think we should make a habit of sanctioning people who file frivolous requests, as well as sanctioning people who disrupt AE threads with irrelevant bickering, or who harass AE admins by filling their talk pages with invective. We also need to get at least a few ArbCom members going on the record in support of AE admins. I for one am not keen to be second guessed and be accused of admin abuse by the hardcore troublemakers who often get reported at AE. The current situation is appalling. AE admins are outnumbered by disruptive editors, and we receive little to no support. Jehochman 01:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(comments refactored, below)

Vecrumba, we are not discussing the Eastern Europe drama here. We are discussing the management of this noticeboard. If you would like to contribute to this discussion, it would help if you would stay on topic.  Sandstein  09:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(refactored) I support a venue where arbitration request conversations can be properly threaded to be be more readable than the current "Comments to"--which should all be moved to the discussion page with admins committing to read both the request page and discussion page with equal attention. To the drama, I support a moratorium on filings of arbitration requests to compel editors with opposing POVs to resolve their differences through improved article content. Moreover, this will also afford admins the opportunity to observe editorial conduct over a statistically significant period during which the "arbitration method" of content warring is unavailable, removing tit-for-tat from the equation. Hope this helps on both issues. The answer is not finding more admins to assist in resolutions—increasing the throughput of the system being gamed will not help. Vecrumba       TALK 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Sandstein's suggestion is that its likely outcome would add a new layer of political gaming to AE. It would create a tactical motivation for editors to collude offsite (probably more so than already happens) in order to make an effective 'first strike' against a given target, who could only rebut on the talk page where posts are less likely to be read. Conscientious admins would have to toggle between AE and AE talk to get a fair view of the actual situation, while less careful admins would likely get taken in some of the time by misleading claims and cherry picked evidence. Everyone agrees the current situation is bad, but this proposal would be likely to make it worse. Durova 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it from that angle. Since there does seem to be coordination/collusion in many of the more difficult cases, it may be that the only solution is going to be good old fashioned elbow grease. Yes, its probably a lot to ask for admins to take several hours to go through articles and contribution histories to make sure they have the entire picture but any kind of reliance on the commentary of involved editors is asking for trouble. Shell 03:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If any better solution comes up than elbow grease, I'll be the first to celebrate it. :) Durova 04:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Disallowing threaded discussion does not mean that rebuttals aren't possible, just that they may not be made in threaded form, but rather as an appendix to one's statement. This seems to work well enough on WP:RFAR. And admins would need to be ready to move overly long and off-topic contributions, such as the interruption by Vecrumba above, to the talk page, much like clerks do on RFAR. We cannot prevent offsite collusion, but I do not see how the noticeboard format has any impact on the effectiveness of such collusion.  Sandstein  09:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is already tactical motivation to collaborate off-site on AE threads. It couldn't get worse, because it already happens as much as it could happen. Anyway, as I said on the Request, the best thing is to separate admin comments from non-admin comments. A user files a report, the admins deal with it. There is no need to have threads packed with time-wasting counter-accusation and other such tendentiousness. Relevant comments, if there are any, may be spotted on talk pages. Admins need to be able to discuss action with each other on the thread, particularly when a relevant consensus is needed. This is impossible at the moment as threads quickly get filled with tendentious noise. It also makes it hard for new admins, both because they won't be able to spot the important train of dialogue, and because the seasoned AE admins may not even recognise that important comments are being made. To the unknowing, one name is as good as the other. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I support removing discussion from the main section of AE (but editors should be allowed to make one statement each, like on ArbCom). Perhaps it can be somehow separated, or kept admin-only, but the current situation needs addressing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this work - one statement per user, one section for threaded discussion among uninvolved admins, all other threaded discussion goes on the talk page?  Sandstein  17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a similar format to RFAR would work, with each participant able to make their statement and any rebuttals in their own section and threaded discussion moved to the talk page. Also would some rule on age of diffs be useful? --Martintg (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing about format. Older diffs are useful when the older diffs demonstrate a continuing behavioral pattern and more recent diffs also exist of similar action. Durova 18:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Sandstein, your suggestion is better than the current format. @ Martin, so is yours. I don't think that AE are likely to last long enough to justify the grandiosity of ArbR style user sections, but like I said it would be better than the current format. Hopefully everyone can agree the current format sux. The best format of all transcluded RfA style page per thread, where the accused and the accuser along with admins can post in the main thread, while the opposing networks of clients, patrons and allies can post on the talk. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page separation?

If we agree to change the format, do we need to set up Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement as a talkpage of its own, rather than having it redirect here? Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case currently redirects here as well, but AE might have a higher talk volume.  Sandstein  09:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See my suggestion below: likely better with large disputes to implement an AE format modeled after arbitration evidence where everything remains on one page, but each editor posts in their own section. Durova 18:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Deposit EE admin side points here

Kirill, your flippant response is most unhelpful. All you need to do is look at the nasty wikilawyering in the responses here and the lengthy messages on my talk page and at User talk:Sandstein to understand what sort of badgering and drama mongering will follow any serious application of "discretionary sanctions" (a euphemism for "ArbCom passing the buck"). User: Shell Kinney suggested sanctions, and I concurred, but Sandstein thought otherwise, which was his prerogative. WP:AE does not work when there is no consensus among administrators. I was not about to ban Digwuren after Sandstein refused to do so in a thread immediately above. Would you prefer that we start a major drama and then come here, or should we have the good sense to recognize when such a situation is incipient and come here for help first? Jehochman 03:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We have deadlock at AE.. More administrators will not solve the problem. Several vested contributors need to be banned or restricted, but they are being protected, and they are gaming AE against opponents. I'm not sure how to ban somebody from AE. May I? Jehochman 12:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to help a bit. I'm going back to take a closer look at the Beatle Fab Four, Biophys, Offliner and Digwuren requests by reviewing their recent contrib history. This is going to take me several hours each which means some may not have comments until tomorrow; I already closed the Beatle Fab Four report because I felt it was rather straight-forward. Since the other reports are more complex, I'm going to present what I found and any suggestions I might have for going fowards as opposed to immediately closing. Shell 02:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That should be useful. Fab Four already approached me and asked me to undo your close. I will not, because I agree with what you did. Jehochman 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've received the same request to reverse the decision but have yet to hear a compelling reason for approx 90% of one's contributions being reverting and other disruption. Shell 03:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A problem is that discretionary sanctions may work in small disputes, but when a dispute reaches critical mass the noticeboard format breaks down. The most viable solution might be to designate certain large-scale cases to a new format modeled after the evidence sections of an actual arbitration case. Crud would still accumulate, but it would be sequestered and easier to separate wheat from chaff.

In the larger picture--this is as good a place to say it as any--earlier this year when I complained about "milquetoast" decisions and "passing the buck", I took it for granted that baseline Wikipedian norms would remain in effect with Committee deliberations: substantial evidence of recent policy violation should always be requisite for sanctions. Between pacifism and the nuclear option there must be a happy medium where remedies apply to primary antagonists based upon sound evidence. As Shell Kinney affirms above, there is no substitute for elbow grease. Durova 04:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be made clear to certain editors that "this is your really last chance before hammers start falling" and that "both sides seem at fault" here. Hopefully this will give some a pause. And for those which don't... I think our patience is quite thin as it is. Regarding the recent application of 6-month topic ban, I do agree that "elbow grease" needs to be heavily used - but we shouldn't apply this remedy to editors who (mostly) create good content in this area, but only to those who try to damage / POV push it (a wide application of this remedy could, for example, ban every single Estonian editor in this project!). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Poitrus, are you involved or uninvoled in EE controversies? Jehochman 18:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied there.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Respectfully disagreeing with Piotrus: primary antagonists do exist within most disputes. Regardless of the subject, a disruptive editor's first tactic is "it's all his fault"; with the fallback position being "he's just as bad as I am". A basic strategy of disruptive editors is to drag other people down to their level and muddy the waters. In order to stabilize these topics in the long run, it's crucial to maintain the trust of the individuals who are willing to take the high road--and demonstrate at sanctions time that a track record of productive contributions with occasional bursts of honest frustration will be handled differently than months of POV pushing, baiting, and wikilawyering. If the sanctions response gets reduced to a binary warn everybody v. sanction everybody, then the disruptive editors gain the upper hand. Because when people who are responsible for making distinctions stop attempting to do so, then regular Wikipedians caught in the dispute despair and actually do sink to the level of the disruptors. There has to be some benefit for attempting to take the high road. Durova 18:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummm. I think I agree with you - I can't find anything in your post above that I'd disagree with. So... which part of my statement above you disagree with, exactly? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we misunderstand each other. The 'we'll sternly warn both sides' has been a handwaving solution in past situations at various disputes. Occasionally stern warnings on both sides are actually appropriate if accompanied with detailed analysis of why each individual deserves a warning. More often, blanket warnings occur without specific reasoning--which tends to give the impression that the decision is really Admin-ese or Arb-ese for "My eyes glazed over when I tried to read this mess, so please all of you just go away". Durova 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Another wrinkle to consider, most admins don't have the time to handle these cases - I'm in 15 hours reviewing and I'm not halfway through. Its like running a mini-Arb case. Shell 05:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well put, Shell. This site ought to have a way of honoring the admins who roll up their sleeves and do that hard work. Most of the labor never shows up on an edit history--chasing down diffs and double checking and taking notes. Durova 22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki Help

Which page has the edit notice for WP:AE containing the template for filing requests? I'd like to edit the request template. Jehochman 18:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Arbitration enforcement request and Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.  Sandstein  22:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am going to add a few notes to the request template. This template has helped the board function more smoothly, I think. My changes will add a note that the conclusion section is for comments by uninvolved administrators only. Other editors will be free to comment in the discussion section. Jehochman 00:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting advice re. Obama editing restriction

Is it is permissible under Obama articles remedy 11.1 (and by extension 11) for editors restricted from interacting with each other to unilaterally criticize each other? I am troubled by ongoing accusations of bad faith, trolling, and stalking made against me by an editor with whom I am not to interact. To keep my equanimity, and avoid running afoul myself of the editing restrictions, I will not follow suit, respond to the accusations, take this issue to forums other than Arbcom, or otherwise interact with the editor (hence my not mentioning them by name or notifying them). However, these personal attacks are troubling and I wish they would stop. They follow many similar accusations made both before and during the arbitration, and were themselves a subject of the arbitration. If the aim of the no-interaction remedy is to stop this, and restore a healthy editing environment, surely that remedy means to stop repeating the accusations, right?Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)