After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 8 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
As the principal drafting arbitrator in this case, I apologize for the fact that off-wiki issues prevented my posting this decision as quickly as I had hoped. I also thank all the editors, both parties and non-parties, who commented on proposals the workshop. Several of the comments have been implemented in drafting the proposed decision, and all have been considered. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.
2) All editors are expected to adhere to Wikipedia's code of conduct. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly or uncollaborative conduct, such as personal attacks, disrespect toward other editors, uncivil commments,
harassment, unjustified failure to assume good faith, using Wikipedia as a battleground, or comments containing unnecessary ethnic or national references concerning editors, all are inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of another editor, if they cannot be resolved directly with the editors, should be addressed in the appropriate forums.
3) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.
4) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content, fairly representing the weight of authority for each view.
5) In drafting articles and especially in discussing disputed article content, editors should take appropriate care to distinguish reasonably agreed-upon facts from statements of opinion or partisan views. When the accuracy of a statement cannot reasonably be contested, it is inappropriate in discussing article content to deny that the statement is true, although it may still be entirely appropriate to question whether the fact is relevant to a particular article or has been given undue weight in that article. When a statement is a matter of opinion, however, the article should make clear who or what side of a dispute holds that opinion and ensure that competing opinions with a reasonable degree of support are also represented.
Support:
For example, whether Gibraltar is "self-governing" is, given the vagueness of the term "self-governing," a matter of opinion; whether the fact that Gibraltar is included on the United Nations List of Non-Self-Governing Territories should be prominently mentioned in Gibraltar is a matter of opinion; whether Gibraltar's inclusion on that list demonstrates that Gibraltar actually is not "self-governing" is a matter of opinion; but that Gibraltar is included on that list is a fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. One must always be sure to differentiate fact from opinion, and just as importantly, not present your opinion as fact. SirFozzie (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad's example is a very good illustration. Risker (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the determination that a source is or is not correct; or any conclusion reached from what a source states is original research. — Coren(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
I support this in principle, but I fear this veers too close to telling people how to edit. Properly, that should be done on policy pages and by the community of editors, not by ArbCom. If a principle like this is needed, it should focus on how failure to edit with these principles in mind is disruptive. Furthermore, the wording of such a principle should be tied closely to current policy wording (and should link to the policies in question), or it should state that there is a gap in policy that needs filling (or a bloat in policy that needs reducing). Search Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for the terms "fact" and "opinion" to see what I mean. It is important not to forget that more people read (and misunderstand or are misled by) the core policy pages (and people's interpretations of them in article talk page discussions) than read arbitration pages. It is what is said on those core policy pages and the examples people follow when they see others editing, that really makes a difference. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts
6) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, they should bear in mind while editing that they may consciously or unconsciously be expressing their views rather than editing neutrally. They should take this natural tendency into account while they are editing and participating in talkpage discussions.
7) Wikipedia's policies allowing anonymous editing while discouraging conflicts of interest create a tension that necessarily is imperfectly resolved. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high degree of sensitivity to the competing concerns.
Support:
I have carefully considered the input received on the workshop to the effect that this is too generic to be useful but have not yet been able to formulate a more developed proposal. The present case is illustrative; it is clear to me that the COI allegations that arose in this case were not handled well, but less clear what the best way of handling them might have been. I would welcome further suggestions on this topic (as all others) from my colleagues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was not handled well, agreed.. but we have a situation that rewards people who are less then honest about Conflicts they may have, and penalizes people who are honest and up front. There needs to be a way to get these two policies to play nice with each other.. but so far there's no way around it. SirFozzie (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this case illustrates the fact that sometimes the fundamental principles of the project are in conflict with each other; this problem has a reach beyond our own project as the same conflict exists within Wikimedia Foundation core principles. Risker (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) The locus of the dispute is user conduct relating to editing of Gibraltar and related articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar.
2) Several editors on Gibraltar and related articles have engaged in poor behavior over a prolonged period of time, including gross incivility and personal attacks and abuse directed toward other editors, tendentious editing, persistent edit-warring, failing to cite reliable sources or relying excessively on partisan sources, and failing to respect consensus. The effect of these editors' conduct has been to produce an ongoing battlefield mentality and to drive other, more neutral editors away from Gibraltar and related articles.
As is often the case, on-wiki disputes mirror real-world conflicts. — Coren(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Gibnews
3) Over an extended period of time, Gibnews (talk·contribs) has edit-warred and edited tendentiously and non-neutrally with respect to the history and political status of Gibraltar, and has made comments of a nationally or ethnically offensive nature.
Support:
Adapted from my colleague Steve Smith's proposal on the workshop. I appreciate Gibnews's contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of Gibraltar and understand that he has strongly held views on the history and status of his homeland), but conclude upon a review of all the evidence that this finding is appropriate. I note that in recent weeks there appear to have been fewer incidents of this type of behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there has been a significant period of tendentious, non-neutral editing by Gibnews in this area. SirFozzie (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems clear from the evidence that Gibnews's behavior in this topic area has been problematic for quite some time, but there is also evidence of good contributions - if Gibnews can put aside some of their strongly held views and focus more on working with others (as in the past few weeks as Newyorkbrad points out), they might be able to work in this topic area. Shellbabelfish 02:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad and Shell Kinney. Risker (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would add (after scanning down a list of articles edited by Gibnews) that he edits almost exclusively in the topic area of Gibraltar and related matters, almost to the extent of being a single-purpose account. This lack of diversity in editing habits should be noted, and diversifying into other areas should be encouraged. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worse, in principle, than the biased editing (since everyone is biased to some degree) is the highly offensive nature of some of his comments based on (presumed) ethnic backgrounds of other editors. — Coren(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Justin A Kuntz
4) Justin A Kuntz (talk·contribs) (who signs as "Justin the Evil Scotsman") has made a series of uncivil comments, assumed bad faith, and engaged in personal attacks during interactions with other editors concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
Support:
Adapted from Steve Smith's proposal on the workshop. I appreciate Justin A Kuntz's contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of Gibraltar—as well as other subjects and understand that he has strongly held views on the history and status of Gibraltar—but conclude upon a review of all the evidence that this finding is appropriate. I note that in recent weeks there appear to have been fewer incidents of this type of behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As with Gibnews, it's best to put aside any strongly held views and focus on working with others or choose to work elsewhere on Wikipedia. Shellbabelfish 02:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though perhaps less exclusively focused on Gibraltar. — Coren(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick
5) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk·contribs) has made uncivil comments toward other editors during interactions concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
Support:
At least warrants an admonishment, which requires a FoF to support it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the comments reach the level of admonishment. Shellbabelfish 02:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, I do not think that this rises to the level of requiring a arbcom finding, although this is not to excuse the comments he has made. SirFozzie (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the comments in evidence were ill-advised, certainly, and that improvement should take place but they do not raise to the level of a finding in this case. — Coren(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ill-advised yes, rising to the level of a finding, no. KnightLago (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After careful review of the evidence, I come down on the side of SirFozzie, Coren, and KnightLago. Because the comments cited in evidence were ill-considered and inappropriate, but relatively isolated and a few months old, and because my sense from recent discussions is that this editor will not repeat this type of behavior, I conclude that a formal arbitration sanction is not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Adapted from Steve Smith's proposal on the Workshop. I am not certain that this editor's conduct rises to the level of requiring an arbitration finding, so posting here for consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see specific differences on this. KnightLago (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ecemaml
6) At times, Ecemaml (talk·contribs) has assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
Support:
At least warrants an admonishment, which requires a FoF to support it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rlevse. Especially in contentious areas, good faith and a willingness to work with other are important. Shellbabelfish 02:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a bit stale, but the failure to assume good faith were so blatant that they bear a strong reminder. — Coren(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adapted from Steve Smith's proposal on the Workshop. At this point, and as adverted to by Steve in commenting on his proposal, the evidence adduced appears to be a bit stale—perhaps too much so to warrant an arbitration finding. Posting here for consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stale. I'd be willing to move to support if someone provided more recent examples. Again, this is not to excuse the actions he's taken, however. SirFozzie (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fozzie, need more current examples. KnightLago (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Discretionary sanctions
1) Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles. The sanctions imposed may include bans for a period of time or indefinitely from editing any page or set of pages relating to Gibraltar; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; blocks of up to one year in length; or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and the misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to do so may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
Support:
With minor editorial changes and clarifications from the workshop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With an explicit note that "any other measure" is meant to include possible restrictions (such as protection, or 1RR restrictions) placed on relevant articles when it seems to be the best solution to an incident. — Coren(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Appeal of discretionary sanctions
2) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
Support:
I am able to support this standard wording because the last two sentences contain elements of discretion and do not purport to impose inflexible requirements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will note as well that administrators relying on this remedy to take action must be willing to listen to appeals and to consider alternatives proposed by other uninvolved editors and administrators. As critical as it is for arbitration enforcement actions to be respected, civil and thoughtful response to queries and informal appeals is required as well. Risker (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3) Gibnews (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
Support:
Adapted from Steve Smith's proposal on the workshop. For me, second choice, prefer 3.1 coupled with 4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, coupled with 4. SirFozzie (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice; it's clear that Gibnews is currenly fixated on that topic to his (and the project's) detriment. — Coren(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Gibnews topic-banned
3.1) Gibnews (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
Support:
First choice, coupled with 4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, coupled with 4. SirFozzie (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, but iff remedy 4 also passes. — Coren(talk) 14:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Gibnews warned
4) Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Wikipedia and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.
5) Justin A Kuntz (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
Support:
Per Steve Smith's proposal on the workshop, and refer to Justin A Kuntz's comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(made small change in second sentence to clarify who the reminder is for in this remedy. Thank you to the onlooker who saw the problem and emailed me the heads up that I missed.) SirFozzie (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd even support longer. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment on the proposed finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Per Steve Smith's proposal on the workshop. I am uncertain; submitting for consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see specific differences on this. Otherwise, I may move to oppose. KnightLago (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ecemaml
7) Ecemaml (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months.
Support:
At a minimum. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed per Steve Smith's proposal on the workshop. Based on the evidence to date, I am unpersuaded that this sanction is warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe an admonishment may be appropriate here, I am not persuaded a topic ban is entirely necessary. Risker (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, would like to see more recent examples. KnightLago (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ecemaml
7.1) Ecemaml (talk·contribs) is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
Support:
Conditional support in lieu of 7 if 7 is passing. In other words, while I am not currently persuaded that there is a current problem with Ecemaml's editing warranting an arbitration sanction, if the majority is determined to pass a sanction, I support this admonition in lieu of the proposed topic ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although remedy 7 is no longer passing, I will let my vote stand as weak support for the admonition remedy in the interests of consensus and closing the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may wish devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Area X and who finds himself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent conflict between Area X and Area Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Area X.
Can think of so many areas (and editors) that need to be reminded of this. SirFozzie (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so true. To quote Rodney King, "Can we all get along?" These ethnic/nationalistic wars on wiki are really tiresome. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let a topic that gets you all bent out of shape ruin your participation here. Shellbabelfish 03:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9) Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.
Support:
Any vagueness in identifying the editor or editors involved here is intentional. The Arbitration Committee has read the privately submitted evidence, and I trust that there will be no further problems in this area, at least not on this group of articles. If a serious concern regarding the effect of this remedy on any editor of Gibraltar or related articles should arise after the case is closed, an e-mail may be sent to the Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) Should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy.
2) Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator, unless the applicable remedy itself provides for a more severe sanction. After three blocks, the maximum block period shall increase to one year.
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
Proposals which pass
Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Findings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Remedies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.1, 8, 9
Enforcement provisions: 1, 2
Proposals which do not pass
Remedies: 3.1, 7
01:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Finding 5 and remedy 6 no longer passing at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
Will try and address Brad's concerns below, then we should be ready to close. Carcharoth (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that everyone intending to vote has now done so. Although it is possible that KnightLago's input may change other votes, the case is otherwise ready to close and I do not see a major impetus in the direction of further vote changes, reflecting that the currently passing remedies appear to be broadly acceptable to the majority. Accordingly, support close effective 24 hours from this date. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Getting close, but not just yet, please. There is at least one more arbitrator intending to vote and whose vote may affect a result. In addition, it would be helpful if supporters of the findings and remedies on which voting is split could supply recent diffs buttressing the proposals in question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
