- Blnguyen
- Charles Matthews
- FredBauder
- Jdforrester
- Jpgordon
- Kirill Lokshin
- Mackensen
- Morven
- Paul August
- Raul654
- SimonP
- UninvitedCompany
Inactive/away:
- Flcelloguy
- FloNight
- Neutrality
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Proposed_decision#Jayjg.27s_question <--- shouldn't that be unavoidable? Kwsn (Ni!) 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I read it as in "the drama would have been avoided had the question not been asked at that time in that forum". However, I can see how (if it read unavoidable) it can also be interpreted as "since the question had been asked the drama is now unavoidable". I like it...a sentence that could have the same essential meaning using either one term or its opposite!--
Xnuala (
talk)(
Review)
22:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- My intent was definitely the first version; the drama would have been avoided had the question not been posed in such a manner.
Kirill
03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about changing the wording to something like "an increase in drama that could have been avoided had the matter been handled differently"? (Not a comment on the merits, just a suggestion to clarify the intended meaning.)
Newyorkbrad
14:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea, and done. Kirill 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about changing the wording to something like "an increase in drama that could have been avoided had the matter been handled differently"? (Not a comment on the merits, just a suggestion to clarify the intended meaning.)
Newyorkbrad
14:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- My intent was definitely the first version; the drama would have been avoided had the question not been posed in such a manner.
Kirill
03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The items posted by Kirill seem like a good start at a final decision. Does any one think that an update on proxies will be forthcoming here also? -- Rocksanddirt 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Could the #Background finding of fact include a link to m:CheckUser policy, just as a quick reference for users unfamiliar with the tool? Picaroon (Talk) 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. Though followers of this Arbitration now know more than they wanted to about the m:CheckUser policy and it's implementation. -- Rocksanddirt 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Just for clarity's sake. The first version of remedy 2 (with admonish) is meant to be stronger than the second (with remind), right? Eluchil404 20:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Blnguyen
- Charles Matthews
- FredBauder
- Jdforrester
- Jpgordon
- Kirill Lokshin
- Mackensen
- Morven
- Paul August
- Raul654
- SimonP
- UninvitedCompany
Inactive/away:
- Flcelloguy
- FloNight
- Neutrality
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Proposed_decision#Jayjg.27s_question <--- shouldn't that be unavoidable? Kwsn (Ni!) 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I read it as in "the drama would have been avoided had the question not been asked at that time in that forum". However, I can see how (if it read unavoidable) it can also be interpreted as "since the question had been asked the drama is now unavoidable". I like it...a sentence that could have the same essential meaning using either one term or its opposite!--
Xnuala (
talk)(
Review)
22:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- My intent was definitely the first version; the drama would have been avoided had the question not been posed in such a manner.
Kirill
03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about changing the wording to something like "an increase in drama that could have been avoided had the matter been handled differently"? (Not a comment on the merits, just a suggestion to clarify the intended meaning.)
Newyorkbrad
14:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea, and done. Kirill 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about changing the wording to something like "an increase in drama that could have been avoided had the matter been handled differently"? (Not a comment on the merits, just a suggestion to clarify the intended meaning.)
Newyorkbrad
14:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- My intent was definitely the first version; the drama would have been avoided had the question not been posed in such a manner.
Kirill
03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The items posted by Kirill seem like a good start at a final decision. Does any one think that an update on proxies will be forthcoming here also? -- Rocksanddirt 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Could the #Background finding of fact include a link to m:CheckUser policy, just as a quick reference for users unfamiliar with the tool? Picaroon (Talk) 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. Though followers of this Arbitration now know more than they wanted to about the m:CheckUser policy and it's implementation. -- Rocksanddirt 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Just for clarity's sake. The first version of remedy 2 (with admonish) is meant to be stronger than the second (with remind), right? Eluchil404 20:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)