Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-/Proposed decision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] A brief but probably important point
A bit of wikilawyering, but this does not not address the current "indefinite ban" on editing anywhere, including User talk:-Ril- (since that page has been protected by TUC. see here). Tomer TALK 23:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sig?
The proposed findings of fact include mention of the signature question, but the remedies don't. -Splashtalk 02:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Largely for of my own curiosity, though perhaps also of possible future precedent or generalisation, what does the 'Com have in mind as the standard as a "non-confusing signature"? Absence of wiki-coding gimmicks that tend to screw up writing or copying it? That it resemble the user's username to some intuitively obvious extent? Neither, both...? Alai 23:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edit warring
I was under the impression that Ril's edit warring was one of the major contentions in this arbitration. But that is not addressed in the remedies or even the findings of fact. I realize you may have discussed this somewhere, but I just wanted to make sure it isn't overlooked. Dmcdevitยทt 08:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
