Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 127: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:58, 12 July 2024

Revision as of 23:07, 12 July 2024

Line 560:

*:@[[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]]: The middle of a thread about another topic is not the place for new dispute resolution. Please take your complaints to either the community at a notice board or to the committee at [[WP:ARC]] -- [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

*I agree with Aoidh and Guerillero. I want to emphasise that users should never ask for identifying information of other users, including their religion. Instead, the question they can ask others is, "Do you have a [[WP:COI]] with this topic?" It is also important to emphasise that, under current Wikipedia policy, an editor with a COI on a topic is allowed to edit articles in which they have a COI with, as long as they have disclosed any contributions covered under [[WP:PAID]] and they adhere to Wikipedia's policies and procedures, including having a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] in their contributions. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 16:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

== Amendment request: Durova ==

:'''''[[Special:Permalink/1234165816#Amendment request: Durova|Original discussion]]'''''

{{Archive top}}

'''Initiated by''' [[User:Joe Roe|Joe Roe]] '''at''' 16:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected

:{{RFARlinks|Durova}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested

#[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Private_correspondence|Private correspondence]]

#[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Removal_of_private_correspondence|Removal of private correspondence]]

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

*{{admin|Joe Roe}} (initiator)

; Information about amendment request

*[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Private_correspondence|Private correspondence]]

:*I'm requesting that the committee rescind this principle, which reads: {{tq|In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public ___domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]].}}

*[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Removal_of_private_correspondence|Removal of private correspondence]]

:*I'm requesting that the committee rescind this principle, which reads: {{tq|Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee.}}

=== Statement by Joe Roe (Durova) ===

Following up on [[#Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads]], I would like to request that committee formally rescind these two principles. The ArbCom of 2007 were playing armchair lawyer here. It isn't up to us to decide whether or not emails are subject to copyright (apparently the real lawyers are still arguing about it). But it's also not relevant, because the conclusion drawn in these two principles—that if something is copyrighted it can never be posted on-wiki—is nonsense. We post copyrighted text without permission all the time in the form of quotations, and quoting off-wiki correspondence when it is relevant to on-wiki discussions is no different. The [[Right to quote|right to quote]] is protected in all copyright regimes.

I don't expect that rescinding these principles will have any immediate effect, because policy currently forbids the posting of off-wiki correspondence because it's [[WP:OUTING|considered personal information]], not for copyright reasons. However, the 2007 decision is still sporadically referenced in policies and guidelines, most notably in [[WP:EMAILPOST]]. Formally removing it would help clarify the consensus status of these policies and generally make it easier to discuss the issue of off-wiki communication without old, faulty reasoning getting in the way. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 16:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Primefac|Barkeep49}} I wouldn't say it's ArbCom's responsibility to determine whether posting emails is okay or not as a general rule. Apart from the bit about the Durova case, the full text of [[WP:EMAILPOST]] is "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence" and as far as I know that's the only policy that specifically addresses it. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe (mobile)|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe (mobile)|talk]])</small> 04:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

::{{ping|Barkeep49}} I think we're saying the same thing. I don't think [[WP:EMAILPOST]], or the ''Durova'' case, have any bearing on whether off-wiki correspondence is considered personal information. That comes from the community's interpretation of [[WP:OUTING]], as expressed in a couple of RfCs that I think are linked above somewhere. As far as I'm aware ArbCom had no role in developing that interpretation, which is what I intended to draw attention to in my reply above. I'm sorry if I've given reason to be suspicious of my motives. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jclemens (Durova) ===

This is overdue. Those principles, explicitly citing [[WP:EMAILABUSE]], were used to suppress quotes of positive correspondence I'd received via email (using the 'email this user' feature) and posted to my own user talk page--after my most memorable screw-up and consequently at the end of my tenure on Arbcom. What's left is at [[User talk:Jclemens/Archive 12#Mailbag]] if anyone wants to read about it, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJclemens&diff=519505115&oldid=519503245 this] is what was stricken. Given what all else was happening at that time, I never brought it up for further review. Now that a dozen years have passed, can we agree that the principle was wrong from the get-go and never appropriate? [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 18:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{U|Primefac}}, the notion that emails have any privacy from redistribution only has any credibility based on the boilerplate footers whose ubiquity you note. In fact, spoken conversations, which we can all agree are more ephemeral, may be recorded in the United States with one party consent ([https://legalhearsay.com/is-it-legal-to-record-a-conversation-a-state-by-state-guide/ many] states require two-party consent, but federal law is less restrictive). For copyright purposes, however, the person recording a phone call created the sound recording, while the author who composed an email clearly holds the copyright to its text. Sending an email implicitly grants a license to all the mail servers and network equipment involved in handling the message to copy it and forward it appropriately to its recipient. Attempting to revoke access to an email after receipt by way of footers, when no explicit agreement to receive the (copyrighted) email was ever entered into, is sufficiently unlike other copyright licensing that the legal framework remains unsettled some sixty years after the invention of email. TLDR: there is no legal expectation of privacy in email, so we should not pretend as if there is. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 19:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

::Indeed, that failed to capture the key point well; allow me to try again: No one who understands it thinks email is private. Since the very beginning, email has been forwardable, printable, or copyable. Since the 1980's, colleagues of mine have kept particularly damning (to others; exculpating to themselves) emails in a "Barbara Walters file". Thus, it is perplexing to suggest any deference to a sender's wishes, even if those wishes were expressed. If you don't want it on a billboard, don't write it on the Internet. Thus, zero deference to email ''as email'' is necessary; everything in [[WP:OUTING]] exists just fine without any reference to email as a specific medium. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Newyorkbrad ===

Reposting or quoting from e-mails intended to be private, without the consent of the author, is at best discourteous and should generally be avoided. One can imagine unusual circumstances that could warrant making an exception; but the mere fact that it's readily possible to forward or copy e-mails does not mean that we should disregard everyone's privacy or disclose their confidential information on a wholesale basis. Significantly, this is a separate issue from copyright.

As for the copyright issue: Under the [[Copyright Act of 1976|copyright statute]] that has been in effect in the United States since 1978 (I can't speak about other countries), copyright generally exists automatically whenever anyone writes something original, whether on paper or electronically; this certainly includes e-mails. (The statutory language: {{tq|Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.}}) When someone quotes from an e-mail without permission, they are implicitly making a [[fair use]] claim, just as if they were quoting from a written letter or a blog or a magazine or a book. I do not recommend that the ArbCom attempt to define the confines of fair use, in this situation or any other. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Barkeep49}} If I were writing this principle from scratch, I would focus the wording on the privacy and courtesy issues as well as on copyright, but as a practical matter, I think that if someone believes our policy in this area should be changed, they should raise the proposed change for discussion directly on the relevant policy page, rather than ask the ArbCom to repeal or modify a principle developed in an arbitration case from 17 years ago. (Of course, a courtesy notification of such a discussion to the Committee and those who follow its work would be entirely appropriate.) So the short answer to your question is that I don't think the Committee need either reaffirm or repudiate the principle. As another observation, Wikipedia copyright policy is often more restrictive than what copyright law might require, so saying "let's generally not quote from e-mails on-wiki without permission, partly because of the potential for copyright concerns" is not the same thing as "quoting from e-mails always constitutes a copyright infringement." [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} The context for the principle, both in the original ''Durova'' case and in the request for clarification, was direct on-wiki quotation, so that's what I addressed; but you are right that the underlying issue could be framed more broadly. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} If the questions you're raising are actually being disputed in practice rather merely in theory, then perhaps the relevant ''policy page'' might warrant discussion or clarification. However, I still don't think any such clarification is best raised in the context of asking the Arbitration Committee, which does not generally set policy, to parse or refine a principle written by a completely different group of arbitrators in a 17-year-old case. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} Please note that I was not yet an arbitrator at the time of this case. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Barkeep49}} Although I am still unsure of the value of rewriting principles from old decisions, simply deleting the reference to copyrights as is being proposed should not create any risk. As I read the motion, the Committee is not saying that quoting an e-mail on-wiki always violates the author's copyright or never violates the copyright&mdash;both of which would be overbroad and therefore untrue statements&mdash;but is simply not addressing the issue, since there is no need for it to do so. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

===Alanscottwalker===

There appear to be some unexamined assumptions in what New York Brad writes. The first is where does his idea come from that this is limited to "quotes", when the holding speaks of "content", one can share content without quotes (indeed most Wikipedians do that everyday in our articles). And no its not always CVIO, words still belong to everyone, so a quoted a word or short phrase is not going to be CVIO. Also, his idea of "courtesy" has to be culturally specific and more importantly circumstantial, as there are all kinds of e-mails, and probably only those that explicitly say, 'this is private', ''and'' the author has a reasonable expectation. There are a bunch of situations where the receiver would think the sender has no such reasonable expectation (even if they say its private, depending on the situation and the content). Also "private information", what do you mean, do you mean name address, ph, etc or is it being used ambiguously to mean everything. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 16:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:So, Brad, are you saying it is limited to quotes or not?

:And generally writing summary is not a CVIO, nor is a word, or limited quotation, right?

:And don't you think your being culturally and circumstantially overbroad with your claimed "courtesy"?

:Finally, are you not being ambiguous when you broadly refer to "private information"?

:All these issues more than suggest the principle needs clarification. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:Why won't you answer the questions about your assertions Brad? Being disputed in practice, that is what we are doing now. It seems plain that the committee is still responsible for its words, and if it wrote poorly, overbroadly, and ambiguously, and based on culturally and circumstantially limited unstated assumptions, which appears to be that case from what you have said, it should clarify -- then, perhaps you and othres can actually answer questions about it. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:Brad, I did not say, you were on the committee. You are the one here supporting the principle but why won't you answer questions about your support, is it because the principle is ambiguous? [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Clovermoss ===

I think the premise of prohibiting this on the basis of it being a copyright violation to be a bit odd. I think there's other reasons to be cautious about sharing information from private correspondence but copyright is not what comes to mind. I live in a place where one-party consent is a thing. While that's what ''legally allowed'', if I went around recording every personal conversation I had with someone most people would see that as unnecessarily invasive and ''rude''. I think there needs to be a good reason to share such information without explicit consent. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 16:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by Just Step Sideways===

I was rather surprised to see Durova's name in my watchlist today, seeing as she hasn't edited in a very long time, so curiousity is what brought me to this conversation. Upon reviewing this I have to agree that ArbCom erred here. The committee should not be making rulings in matters of law, and it shouldn't be giving talking points for lame wikilawyering. As Joe states this will have little to no practical effect in practice other than to take away said talking point, our local policies remain in effect in this regard.

2007 was near the end of the "Wild West" era of Wikipedia governance, we hadn't quite nailed down certain boundaries at that time as we have now. This is simply correcting an error from that period and relegating it to the past. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|^{from this world ..... today}]] 22:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by JPxG ===

I said this in the other section above (''in re'' the mentioning of offwiki fora), but I concur with the people here who have said that the copyright thing is ludicrous. Whatever our policy is on reproducing off-wiki correspondence, the claim that it is ''specifically a copyright violation'' is so asinine as to resemble satire -- there is no other place on the whole of the project where we interpret copyright in this derangedly expansive way. If we are to have a rule forbiding emails to be posted here, that's fine, but the basis for this should be the rule, not some made-up nonsense about copyright law. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 03:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by isaacl ===

For convenience, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1233171573#Statement_by_isaacl_2] for a side-by-side view of the proposed change.

Regarding concerns about the implications of the change, they can be discussed as part of the rationale of the motion, and linked to in the principle. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jehochman ===

My opinion mirrors that of Newyorkbrad, Clovermoss and ToBeFree. The copyright and fair use status of emails is complex. We do not need to go there because if somebody wanted to post a message on Wikipedia, the would do so. The fact that a message is sent by email implies that it should not be redistributed without permission ''in general'', subject to reasonable exceptions in unusual circumstances.

I recommend cleaning up the wording of the decision to say that private correspondence should generally be kept private, and only posted online where there is reasonable justification for doing so. To begin, ask permission of the email author. If permission is not obtained, consider whether posting the email would be rude or harassing. Editors may be sanctioned for posting private correspondence when the effect more about harassment than improving the encyclopedia. To play it safe, forward relevant private correspondence to ArbCom and let them decide whether or not it should be posted publicly.

If an email is itself harassing, malicious, or otherwise seriously unwelcome, then any expectation of privacy goes out the window. Hopefully such circumstances will be rare. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 16:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by LessHeard vanU ===

A quick review of [[Wikipedia:Copyright]] does not appear to address anything written (or copied) outside of content space. It seems irrelevant to the issue related to conduct by contributors outside of that space and, I suggest, should be removed. As an aside, I agree that removing any indication of ArbCom determining what falls under Copyright law is a bonus. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 16:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by Floq===

{{ping|ToBeFree}} I see [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]]'s point; the "changed from" text is not really the "changed from" text, it's the "changed to" text, using strikeouts. In this particular case, I suppose everyone knows what is meant, but for the future, you should either say "changed as follows" and then use strikeouts and underlines, or keep the from/to system but remove the strikouts. Or, even better, use Isaacl's formatting, which is probably more familiar to Wikipedians. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 18:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:Ugh, I dislike not being able to discuss this in a threaded conversation.....

:{{ping|ToBeFree}} I know how strikeout works. Using strikeout alone, without.... just... just nevermind. Ask Guerillero on the mailing list or something. Or don't. I'm bikeshedding, and you're misunderstanding, and interacting with other humans is exhausting sometimes. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Durova: Clerk notes ===

:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

*

=== Durova: Arbitrator views and discussion ===

*I have mixed feelings about this request. On the one hand, I do agree that claiming "copyright violation" for a private correspondence is a bit excessive. On the other hand, posting private correspondence without consent could potentially be seen as harassment. There will obviously be exceptions (e.g. emails to Jclemens posted above), but in general we probably should not be posting emails on-wiki unless both sender and receiver(s) are okay with it. The Principles also do not necessarily specify that this pertains to emails sent between editors; many people use the "this email is only for the intended recipient" footer and — while I know that it is not necessarily a legally binding statement — those requests should generally be respected. In other words, I think the intent behind those principles is sound, even if we have to potentially strike the unsound rationale that supports it. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

*:Jclemens, I suppose it is a good thing then that I said and recognised that such statements are not legally binding... [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 23:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

*In general I am wary about rescinding principles (and findings of fact) in a way that is not true for remedies. However, I think this case for rescinding this particular principle - given the way that it remains in use at times - suggests that rescinding it would be appropriate. However, as Primefac notes, it would have to be done in a way that doesn't say "posting entire emails is OK". [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

*:@[[User:Joe Roe|Joe Roe]] I can't tell if we're saying the same thing or if you're playing a long game here which I want no part of. I am OK with ArbCom saying "We rescind EMAILPOST but as emails are considered PII, they will continue to be oversighted." I am not ok with saying "We rescind EMAILPOST" and then having someone say "well now that EMAILPOST is rescinded on what grounds do people think it's PII; even arbcom doesn't say that". I had thought we were doing the first thing, but now given your reply to me, I worry we're doing the second thing. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

*:@[[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] I take seriously your assertion ArbCom shouldn't try to be a copyright lawyer. What I can't tell is if you think keeping or repealing this principle is playing copyright lawyer? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

*Just because the United States don't have a law to forbid a behavior, it doesn't mean that the behavior is acceptable on Wikipedia. This applies to a lot of "free speech" and also to publishing e-mails that were sent with an obvious expectation of privacy. I'm fine with removing copyright-based explanations of harassment prohibitions, as this isn't about copyright to my understanding. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 21:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

* The copyright argument is, to my knowledge after reviewing the literature, unsettled and mostly confined to student notes in law reviews. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 14:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

====Motion: Durova====

{{ivmbox|Principle 2 of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova]], ''Private correspondence'', is changed from<br>{{tqq|2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) <s>or their lapse into public ___domain</s>, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. <s>See Wikipedia:Copyrights.</s>}}<br>to<br>{{tqq|2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.}}}}

'''Enacted''' - [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]]&nbsp;[[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 22:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ACMajority|active = 11 |recused = 0 |abstain = 0 |motion = yes}}

;Support

:#This is currently the only change I'm willing to make to principle 2. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 03:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:#Remove as not really accurate and obsolete at this point in the projects history. I'm open to modifying this further but I'm unsure of what that would be at this time. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 23:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

:#The matter of posting private correspondence on Wikipedia is not limited to potential copyright issues, and it seems beneficial to strike wording that suggests that it is the only concern. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 20:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

:#Per my general comments and NYB's clarification of support for this motion. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:#[[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 19:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:# [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 22:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:# I've always found the copyright argument cheesy. There is some reasonable expectation of privacy for private correspondence, but the key word is "reasonable". [[User:Maxim|Maxim]] ([[User talk:Maxim|talk]]) 14:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:# The change is good, the format of this motion continues to make my eyes bleed. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 18:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

::<s>I think I'm still willing to do something here, but NYB has given me pause. I am unsure, per my comments above, if this makes it clear enough that there is no change to the status quo around posting emails but I do appreciate the simplicity and elegance of the proposed change. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 04:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)</s>

;Abstain

::<s>NYB's caution and guidenace here is really giving me pause, but the points in favor of not just letting this stand still resonate. So I am not quite at oppose, but I'm not ready to support so I will instead abstain. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)</s>

;Arbitrator discussion

* Can we not do the weird psudo diff thing with strikeouts? It makes motions harder to understand --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

*:I'm not sure if I understand the concern. Would removing the strikethrough formatting already solve the problem? [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 14:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

*::{{u|Floquenbeam}}, the only difference between MediaWiki's diff view and the strikethrough formatting is the formatting. Both display the old text on one side, marking which part of it is gone in the new version. Using strikethrough formatting instead of colored highlighting on the green text on the yellow box is preferable to me prsonally. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

*I did want to note that I'm not ignoring this, I just want to take more time to read through the history of all of this (which goes pretty far back). - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 05:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}