Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Pre-case statements from un- or semi-involved users

[edit] Statement by Guy

Privatemusings is the third account of this user to make significant edits, other accounts also exist. The account privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was originally registered to engage in contentious policy debate to separate that form the main account, Purples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). No credible reason has ever been advanced why this user would need to use a separate account, since the (then) main account was also used in contentious areas and did not in any case have a reputation that would be damaged by participation. A significant number of people expressed the view that this is not a valid use of an alternate account.

As I understand it CheckUser indicates that Why oh why not? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Nowthennowthenurrgeurrgeurrg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Littlevixensharpears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Thepmaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are also the same user.

Under all the various usernames, Privatemusings has shown consistent interest in drama. Edits to Essjay controversy and AACS enryption key controversy both focus on Wikipedia drama taken to mainspace.

The various accounts edit overlapping subject areas. For example, Purples edited Jonathan King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Privatemusings edited Giovanni di Stefano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), King's lawyer. See [1] for one of Purples' edits to Jonathan King.

Giovanni di Stefano is a highly sensitive article. Privatemusings made highly insensitive edits to this article.

What should we do about people who adopt tones of sweet reason to cover querulousness? Who assume bad faith in others while accusing others of failing to assume good faith in them? Who deliberately flaunt conventions in an apparent desire to court or prolong controversy? There are extraordinarily abrasive characters on Wikipedia. We can work with them up to a point if they are of self-evident benefit to the project. It is much harder to understand why we put up with disruption from editors whose history is less than stellar, particularly since even the very long-term difficult editors are in a state of more or less constant friction. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by WAS 4.250

I think this boils down to the fact that for a single edit-able space, it is necessary for the contributors to act as if the opinions of others matters. If you do not act like that, then you have to be shown the door. I tried with both Jon Awbrey and Privatemusing to convince them to act like other opinions mattered and in both cases, I believe the response was to insist that their right-ness mattered more. It is unworkable to allow people to edit a single edit-able space who do not act as if the opinions of others matters enough to cause them to self-restrain their own edits.WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Privatemusings&oldid=172419903

[edit] Statement by Alecmconroy

As I've said at ANI-- there are a few things I in PM's defense, but those few things aren't sufficient to convince anyone that PM doesn't still need some help in learning to comply with Wikipedia Guidelines.

In PM's defense:

  • I don't think he's ever bad-faith abused sock puppets. When he created the PM account, he immediately identified it as a sockpuppet. He was quick to share his other accounts with any admin who asked. This is not the behavior of an abusive sock-puppeteer, it's the behavior of someone trying to comply with our rules as he understood them. Perhaps he didn't succeed and he crossed a line, but it does look to me like he tried very hard to comply.

But, that said-- I can't in good conscious call the block to be overturned. This pushing too hard on the BLP issue, the incivility to Durova, assumption of bad faith, being a tad too aggressive at the Giovanni article, when great sensitivity was required. The blocking admin doesn't seem to have any conceivable ax to grind whatsoever, and although I do think PM was generally acting in good faith, he seemed to have stumbled across a few too many lines in too short a period.

The best I can say is that-- I do think PM is a basically good-faith editor who's doesn't seem like he's trying to break strict guidelines, but sometimes has trouble with gray ones. Trying blocks shorter than three months/indef might bring substantial results-- if you gave him a week to think it over and then let him come back with a promise to stay away from BLPs, you might yet be able to salvage him. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Doc

Enough. This case is unnecessary and should be summarily dismissed.

It is time we stopped protecting people with process and form-filling. The community should know what to do: zero tolerance for anyone mucking about with BLPs. That we protect the subjects of such articles, and indeed good sensitive editors who painstakingly work on them, is more important than that we protect disruptive editors who are here to push agendas, or, as here, simply enjoy wikidrama. In such cases, after due warning from uninvolved parties, an administrator should simply issue an indefinite block. Goodnight.--Docg 08:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Sam Blacketer

I've been an uninvolved observer of this situation, but I think the Arbitration committee should hear it to determine two issues. Firstly, was it acceptable for Privatemusings to be blocked for sockpuppetry on 18 November after a block for the same reason was overturned on 16 November, absent any evidence that he had engaged in sockpuppetry on the two days he was unblocked? Secondly, is Privatemusings' attraction to highly controversial situations a deliberate attempt to cause drama and trouble, for example by provoking bold actions by administrators that are subsequently reversed? (That has, after all, been the effect). Useful answers could be rendered on those two issues which would be helpful in other cases. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved Relata Refero

  1. If PM was blocked for violation of WP:SOCK after he agreed to abide by a more restrictive interpretation of GHBH - and one that is very far from achieving consensus - than was in operation at the time of his creating alternate accounts, than that is patently absurd.
  2. If PM was blocked for "aggressively editing" an article even when he "freely admitted he know little or nothing of the basis for the disputes", than that's a somewhat original reason to support a block.
  3. If PM was blocked for discussing on an article talkpage what precise reasons we have for excluding apparently reliable sources - "Someone such as Privatemusing, who does not have reliable judgment regarding this particular matter should not be editing the article or commenting on it" - it implies that we are now restricting the editing of certain articles to experts; there has been no claim made that PM has either a COI or a particular POV concerning the subject of this article, about whom he is as well-informed as the rest of us. Naturally, if this is an WP:OFFICE matter, than the normal privileges do not apply. However, this article is not listed on the WP:OFFICE page as being under scrutiny.
  4. Have we become, as suggested by someone on the Administrator's Noticeboard, a place so finished/mature/stodgy that we are in danger of confusing an idealistic devotion to fixing things with a disruptive tendency to create trouble? Is PM incapable of improving the encylopaedia, and is, in fact, his effort completely disruptive, or is he merely an annoyance because he insists, politely, things be explained? Or is he, as some of us seem to think, playing a complex game to confuse us into biting our own tails? (I suspect this last point is why most people are interested, though I find it less compelling or interesting than the first three.)
  5. I enjoy a bit of constructive anarchy as much as the next man, but the point of "process and form-filling" is to protect those without power from the occasional ineptitude of those with power. If this is one of those cases, I'm all for "process and form-filling".

Given these facts, I would be surprised if ArbCom did not choose to take this up. Relata refero (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to David Gerard: If PM seemed to think that he had a right to have multiple accounts and to not reveal publicly the links between his accounts, as long as he did not use those accounts to game consensus or evade scrutiny, that is because that was specifically considered legitimate in WP:SOCK, and still appears to be the consensus version of that policy, if with one or two minor changes to attempt to reduce wikidrama. I don't see why anyone is particularly outraged by that, and not by the first three of the points I make above. It seems more than obvious which of the two situations is problematic for the project. Relata refero (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Kendrick7

I concur with the statement by User:Relata refero. The thread which runs through this editor's so-called "disruption" is not a belief in creating drama, but a belief in adhering to one of our guiding principles, that Wikipedia is not censored. This is a belief I strongly share; I also edited at the two articles User:JzG mentions, Essjay controversy and AACS encryption key controversy, when those were current events, and I am certain via a slightly different random walk I'd be exactly where Privatemusings is now; I am tempted even to carry his cross.

Accusations of "disruption" have been made, and I have repeatedly requested diffs[2] [3] which might show this disruption exists, and they have not been forthcoming. Is the word "disruption" merely a cipher that can be trotted out to justify blocks without evidence? Privatemusings is disruptive only in the way Caesar was ambitious: he's some vague threat to the community which just had to be taken care of, don't worry your pretty little plebeian heads about it.

Privatemusings has worked tirelessly for months to help craft a policy for when links containing external harassment, so-called WP:PROBLEMLINKS, are appropriate in our encyclopedia. The creation of such policy was called for by you, the WP:Arbitration Committee, in a recent case. Of course, when he then went forth and tried to apply the principles the community has tried to develop there to actual articles, he was quickly labeled a troll. The lack of "consensus" to lift this block seems in part due to all the bad blood left over from the attack sites ArbCom being poured upon this editor's head. Furthermore, Privatemusing made clear at WT:PROBLEMLINKS that he created this account to avoid this bad blood staining his other account, and despite JzG's statement that No credible reason has ever been advanced why this user would need to use a separate account, the timing of this block, mere hours after he agreed to give up using any other account, seems to suggest the wisdom of his original course of action.

To pretend that his verifiable, sourced edits to the biography of a certain lawyer violated WP:BLP is absurd. We are an encyclopedia, and our readers rely on us to provide reliably sourced, verifiable information. If we need to create a WP:Biography of living lawyers policy so that our readers and editors may be aware that the articles of lawyers are some special exception to our normal rules, so be it, but the community should not be punishing Privatemusings under such a non-existent policy by standing WP:BLP on its head. -- Kendrick7talk 18:28, 20 November 2007

[edit] Statement by David Gerard

Privatemusings feels his private information, and his name, was revealed. This appears to be because he was sockpuppeting furiously and one of the sockpuppets had a variant on what he claims is his real name. I'm frankly baffled someone could do this and then blame others when the link between the accounts is revealed. Not to mention that he'd promised to keep to one account and then started using others. What baffles me further is that he sincerely believes running multiple accounts, and lying about them, is behaviour he has a right to on Wikipedia. Somehow all this was done in good faith, of some sort. Good luck sorting it out - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add: I was only concerned with the use of multiple accounts for drama. I have not looked into PM's editing career itself. I have no problem with PM having only one account and sticking to it - but the edits will I expect be a matter for the AC to consider - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Jreferee

(I recognized that my statement is after the decision to accept the matter.) My interactions with Privatemusings are recent and came on the talk page for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. My impression is that Privatemusings flies in the gray area between sock puppet and appropriate alternate account, seemingly to test policy boundaries to see how others respond (as opposed to the purpose of improving policy). Privatemusings seems to seek out interactions with the more experienced Wikipedians, the effect of which captures their time away from other matters. The actions taken against Privatemusings may have been too heavy handed, but non action would seem to be too light of hand. I revised Wikipedia:Sock puppetry about a week ago per talk page discussion to include Identification and handling of inappropriate alternate accounts in hopes of addressing such situations. In response, Privatemusings posted these questions and I posted these answers and this answer. I do not think admins and others have been effective at dealing with the many questions raised around Privatemusings actions and ArbCom review of the situation would be most welcome. -- Jreferee t/c 22:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question from (uninvolved) Snickersnee

Hello, I hope I'm putting this in the right spot. I have just looked at this case, and am experiencing a failure to understand. To sum up my obviously flawed analysis:

PM bad because: SOCK
  • Nothing shown here says it's bad to have a sock, not even that dubious "nutshell" cited by JzG. PM appears to have been using socks precisely within the intent of the stated exceptions, violating no policy.
  • Also, this sock had already outed itself.
PM bad because: BADHAND
  • Only if you are certain that the weak examples of "disruption" are somehow sufficient to ignore WP:AGF. I didn't follow every link - can someone point me to one significant example that doesn't torture the definition?
  • If you read the referred policy re. "bad hands", it pretty much requires you to assume bad faith and accuse the sockholder of being a troll. PM conceded that he was using socks to avoid the inevitable stink of heated issues following him home, which is also his defense.
SOCK good because: contentious articles taint user interactions.
  • Everyone seems to agree on this one, yet you continue to have this discussion.

And even if all the above is mistaken, others have already given evidence that the community had considered these issues and reached an agreement with PM, after which this was the only active account. So whatever you're sanctioning now, I don't see how any version of sock policy can legitimately apply. At the end of his evidence, which is all about socks, Guy says the final ban wasn't about socks at all but about "poorly sourced and problematic edits". So why throw up a sockscreen? Aren't you really accusing him of something resembling vandalism, or malicious trolling? I haven't seen evidence of that. Certainly none so outrageous that it justified overriding both consensus and good faith, and then twisting together two separate policies as a remedy to a problem that didn't exist anymore, if it ever had. How come I see AGF used as a club and a shield, but almost never a mirror?

I haven't read previous case material, and shouldn't need to - if you can't explain it here, you can't do it anywhere. The first person (other than PM) that can provide ONE rationale which reconciles ALL the points above gets a cookie. You cannot use the terms "drama" or "disruptive" unless you also point to an example and the applicable policy. Anyone unable to do so should go to bed without dinner. Alone.

Additionally: no one here denies PM's claim that JzG/Guy violated the trust of an EXPRESSLY PRIVATE (unlike GIANO v DUROVA) email from PM, involving some now judging this case (just like GIANO v DUROVA). So far, there seems to be no question of any rebuke to JzG for doing this, even though I see the same cast of arbitrators (as in GIANO v DUROVA. Does stare decisis have a wikified policy analogue, or not? If the same principles apply, shouldn't Guy's actions also be subject to this arbitration, as with Giano? If Guy disclosed explicitly private personal correspondence to share evidence which he himself has now concluded is NOT relevant to a poorly justified final block, how is this more ethical than Giano disclosing arguably implicitly private correspondence, sent to a mailing list, which was entirely relevant to the mistaken blocking of an innocent person?

Perhaps arbitrators have not had sufficient time to consider these questions. Please consider this as a respectful request that they do so, and provide some explanation of their decision. Thank you. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 08:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Privatemusings is now limited to one, single account to edit Wikipedia, and must obtain the Arbitration Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account. Furthermore, Privatemusings is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely: he is prohibited from editing any article that is substantially a biography of a living person. Details of the enforcement regarding these Remedies is detailed here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthøny 13:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned?

On the proposed decision page, a proposal to ban for 90 days got six votes supporting it, but wasn't included in the final decision. Is there a reason why? ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 15:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see this. I'm pretty sure that's the final decision area. Icestorm815 17:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It originally was not included in the final decision, by accident, but is now. Cbrown1023 talk 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I came accross this case's closing on WP:AN, and decided to give it a quick check. The notice of it on AN didn't mention a ban, so I was a little curious. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privatemusings sockpuppet principle

I would like to request clarification on one matter here, namely the restriction that "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." I know I'm not the only administrator to use a secondary account for security purposes while on a public or shared machine. Generally, such secondary accounts are clearly marked as to who they are controlled by, and cannot be used, for example, for circumvention or "bad hand" purposes, as they are clearly linked to their owner. Does the committee intend this ruling to apply even to such accounts? Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This use came up during the Committee's discussion about our understanding of the sockpuppet policy. As long as the accounts are labeled in a way that makes the connection obvious there should not be a problem. Going the extra step of signing these posts with both account names will help if the account names are not obviously the same person. FloNight (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a related thread (from the proposed decision talk page here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is time served included in block time?

Privatemusings [4] was prohibited from editing for 90 days Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision due to an arbitration decision. Does the 90 days start from the time of the decision (December 2) or from the time his block for misbehavior started (November 18th)? Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The general rule is that remedies take effect at the time the decision is finalized and announced. I have suggested once or twice that the time might better run from an earlier effective date based on the equities of a specific case, but the idea has never been endorsed by any of the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If by some odd twist of fate you should find yourself enjoying the fine fruits of membership of that august body, you might push again for such a position. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Privatemusings

I'm willing to give this one a chance.

Original case located here.

I propose

[edit] Repeal

[edit] Privatemusings banned for 90 days

3) Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)' editing privileges are revoked for a period of 90 days. The revocation affects all accounts.

[edit] Impose

[edit] Privatemusings placed on mentorship.

3) Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)' is placed under involuntary mentorship until 29 Feb 2008. The commitee appoints Mercury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) as mentor in this case.

Thanks for consideration. M-ercury at 00:40, January 14, 2008

I have a general familiarity with the Privatemusings case, and personally would probably have supported a lesser remedy than the committee adopted in the case a couple of months ago. However, I don't believe there is sentiment from the committee as a whole to make any changes to the remedies at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification: User:Privatemusings

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for archiving purposes. Daniel (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Statement by User:Lawrence Cohen

Privatemusings is prohibited from working on WP:BLP articles. However, is there any intended prohibition on his removing obvious vandalism or BLP violations from those articles, if found? At User talk:Privatemusings#Probation violation the question has come up whether reverting this edit as vandalism and/or a BLP violation on Heather Mills is allowed, or this edit on Jonathan King. Lawrence § t/e 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also posted by Guy for review to AE, as well, after this posting by me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Privatemusings. Lawrence § t/e 20:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last question for the arbs from Lawrence

Is it safe to assume that in any such topical editing ban, that unless you guys specifically say, "Even if you want to revert vandalism or a BLP violation, don't..." that other users are safe to make such positive edits? Lawrence § t/e 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong to try to extract any rules from this. As Sam said, "I don't encourage editors who have been banned from certain classes of page to revert obvious vandalism there ..." That doesn't mean that common sense shouldn't be applied, but it also doesn't mean that boundary-testing is welcome. SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't want anyone to try to push things to risk a pointless ban, no. I was just curious about their thinking, since it's bound to come up again with someone else. Lawrence § t/e 21:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by SlimVirgin

The account that made the complaint about PrivateMusings — Archfailure (talk • contribs • count • total • block log) — is one with almost no edits. No one sensible is likely to argue that PM shouldn't revert vandalism and serious BLP violations. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG has indef banned Archfailure. Lawrence § t/e 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by LessHeard vanU

As reverting vandalism does not count toward violation of WP:3RR I suggest that reverting vandalism does not count toward violation of PrivateMusings BLP article parole. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by GRBerry

Falls under the heading of "admins are expected to use judgment, even in enforcing ArbComm sanctions. No admin using sound judgment would do anything about reverting that. Not usre this is worth the Arbitrator's time. GRBerry 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk notes

[edit] Arbitrator views and discussion

  • If administrators interpret this remedy as precluding the edits that are being reported, then I will move to vacate it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Archfailure's attempt to get action against Privatemusings is distinctly tendentious. I don't encourage editors who have been banned from certain classes of page to revert obvious vandalism there, but it would be madness to consider it blockable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Even Archfailure says that it was a good revert. Clearly, no admin or Committee action is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe we have a consensus here and that a Clerk can go ahead and archive this section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings

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


[edit] Statement by Avruch

I would like the Committee to please reconsider the indefinite restriction placed upon Privatemusings that prevents editing to any article that is "substantially a biography of a living person." I request that this restriction be commuted to an indefinite or time-limited parole, including: allowing blocks in line with the remedy based on edits reasonably construed as a violation of the BLP policy and restriction to 1RR for all non-vandalism edits on BLP articles.

Privatemusings, returned from his 90 day ban, has edited reasonably and participated as a member of the community in a number of policy related areas. His contributions have shown a fully improved understanding of and adherence to Wikipedia policies and norms, and Wikipedia has benefited from his presence. He has not incurred any additional blocks or other restrictions since returning from his ban, and many editors expressed during his ban and upon its expiration that his insight and participation was valuable both on-wiki and on the Wikback forum. I've even seen grudging praise about his presence on Wikipedia Review.

The link to evidence presented against Privatemusings that is related to the BLP policy is here. While the links to the di Stefano article edits are admin-only, the description does not lead me to believe that they are egregious violations of BLP policy. It is clear to me and many others that the atmosphere of the di Stefano article is particularly strained and contentious, but PM and others should not be penalized permanently for inartful attempts to edit an article whose history is unclear to newcomers. Edits to the King article are admittedly more serious, and display a regrettable lapse in judgment. However, it seems unlikely to me that such behavior will be repeated and I believe the Committee should give Privatemusings the opportunity to reform and eventually transition to an unrestricted status should his conduct remain exemplary. Avruch T 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Privatemusings

Yes please! I'd love an unencumbered account! I'll happily engage with any process any of you recommend; anyone have any questions, for example? I could answer some on a subpage? or expand answers to points you feel it would be good to address? - would anyone like to chat on IRC or somewhere? - let me know. I should also note that ides like a '1RR' on biographies of living people are fine with me, and in many ways are good practice, as well as reassuring anyone worried that I might leap into disruptive editing. How's about a six month '1RR'? I'm also open to any other ideas which may be floating around.

I think my case was a little unusual, and I also wonder if there's any appetite to look at the decision overall, and specifically some of the principles involved (well actually, mainly this one) - which I feel may not have been applied equitably across the board. I'll explain further if any find it relevant.

Regardless of the outcome of this request, I've got a couple of quick questions that are hopefully easy to resolve as well;

  • A link was provided at the end of my biography editing restriction and I wanted to clarify the intention of that. I'm not sure which aspects of my editing the arb.s which to define as inappropriate (one article, two, or just a general sort of thing). In particular it would be very helpful to me to have a concrete response to my posts like this one and this one.
  • If this is too soon, how long d'ya think represents good timing? I'm happy to wait as long as you like, but I'm not completely sure what will change in the interim, so would hope you might consider this now.

thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by other user

[edit] Clerk notes

[edit] Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Too soon for a change. Give it some more time, please. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Privatemusings has improved his behaviour considerably since his return and if he maintains this attitude then I will definitely be prepared to remove the remaining restrictions - but we need slightly longer to show it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Too soon. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Give it another couple months and if behavior is still good I will give my unqualified support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support modification of the remedy, but defer to my colleagues who believe that the passage of some additional time would be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Note to Clerk: I believe this can be archived. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)