Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2/Proposed decision

message: Grunt has written this sanction:
"1) For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from editing articles relating to Ashlee Simpson. Any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or mentioning Ashlee Simpson, see what links to Ashlee Simpson, is an article "relating to Ashlee Simpson"; therefore falling within the articles covered by this limitation, if Everyking is editing with respect to that portion of an article which is concerned with Ashlee Simpson.  Violations of this restriction shall result in blocks of up to 24 hours per violation."
This is somewhat ungrammatical - the intention behind the words seems easy to deduce, but the wording's all mucked up. It also leaves a loophole - Everyking would be permitted to create new articles about Ashlee Simpson, even though he would not then be allowed to edit the articles he creates. I suggest a revision to:
"1) For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from making edits relating to Ashlee Simpson. Without loss to the generality of the prohibition, edits made to any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or which mentions Ashlee Simpson, see what links to Ashlee Simpson, will fall within this prohibition if Everyking is edits the part of the article that is concerned with Ashlee Simpson; creating an article which refers to Ashlee Simpson also falls within this prohibitions. Violations of this restriction shall result in blocks of up to 24 hours per violation."
Also, a one year prohibition does seem somewhat harsh - maybe six months would be fairer, jguk 20:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe nothing. What did I do to warrant even a single day? Everyking 21:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hate to think you might believe lots of people are just trying to get you banned for no reason.  I can't see, though, how this could have ended in any other way than the proposed decision here.  If you don't understand why it's come to this, then you need to read the talk pages on the articles, RfC, RfAr1, RfAr2 - it's all there for anyone to see. Worldtraveller 22:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although we had different views, do you suppose your actual behavior in the dispute has been any better than mine? My behavior has not always been perfect, but I've always adhered to the fundamental principles of discussion and concensus, and I think it's awful that I'm now being punished for that. Everyking 23:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly think my conduct was better than yours during my involvement in this dispute, but if you think I behaved badly, then you're more than welcome to make an RfC or RfA.  The problem is that you haven't adhered to the fundamental principle of consensus - all the evidence that's been presented overwhelmingly shows that.  Honestly, read it all carefully, it's not as if everyone's just made it all up. Worldtraveller 12:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with the wording of the sanction

message: My votes are based on this evidence. Fred Bauder 23:52, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
:Have you also considered my argument that none of what are being called reverts are in fact reverts, but are actually attempts at compromise? Of course you know the importance of critically reviewing evidence. Everyking 23:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Basis for votes