Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

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.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.

For this case, there are 12 active arbitrators and none are recused, so 7 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which require a vote by the Arbitrators will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Restoration of Freakofnurture's admin privileges

1) Since neither long-term suspension nor revocation of Freakofnurture's admin privileges is being seriously contemplated by the Committee, those privileges are hereby restored. Enacted on 23:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: Because there are currently 11 participating arbitrators, a majority on the motion is 6. Newyorkbrad 23:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It's the only issue that actually has a timing component; there's no particular urgency to anything else (unless the other desysopped guys intend to immediately RfA, but, y'know, not likely to get much traction right now.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 23:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't see any reason to rush into this and re-sysop someone prior to full deliberation and investigation of the case; doing so would seemingly place us in a precarious position, handcuffing our ability in some aspects even before the full case is looked into. In addition, if de-sysopping, even for a limited period of time, was proposed and passed, then this motion would not make any sense, having him re-sysopped, de-sysopped, and then re-sysopped again in a short period of time. In any case, the difference between any motion passing and the conclusion of this case should not be a significantly longer amount of time, and I'm just not comfortable with this now. Let the case take its due course, giving us the time needed to adequately assess the situation independently. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fred Bauder 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Clerk note: The motion is adopted. Newyorkbrad 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed temporary injunctions

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.


Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Deletion of pages

1) Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion together provide policy and procedure for deletion and undeletion. Wikipedia administrators are expected to use the deletion and undeletion abilities granted to them in a fashion consistent with these policies. Administrators who wish to delete articles that are clearly outside the criteria for speedy deletion should list those articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Proposed deletion.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 02:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Undeletion of pages

2) While undeletion policy permits admins to reverse an obviously out-of-process deletion, discussion is the more appropriate response when there is disagreement. The proper venue for such discussion is Wikipedia:Deletion review. As a general rule, articles listed there are left deleted at least until a strong consensus begins to emerge in favor of overturning the deletion of the article, or are marked as "temporarily undeleted" if undeletion is necessary so that participants in the review can see the article's contents. Where consensus is unclear, the article should remain deleted until the five-day comment period has elapsed.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Role of Deletion Review

3) When concerns arise that an article may have been deleted in violation of deletion policy, the main focus of a deletion review should be on whether policy was followed. The relative merits of keeping or deleting the article should be secondary. Participants at Deletion Review should not attempt to utilize the out-of-process deletion of an article they dislike as a convenient opportunity to dispose of it. Instead, they should uphold policy by voting to undelete the article and then list it at articles for deletion after the deletion review completes.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Our deletion policy isn't meant to be a suicide pact; if something should obviously be deleted, undeleting it merely because Form 201.4(b) wasn't correctly countersigned is unhelpful. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No reason to waste more of the communities time with an AFD if the deletion is obviously the right choice. FloNight 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Good heavens, no. Process-wonkery at its worst. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Essjay (Talk) 00:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Deletion Review

3.1) When concerns arise that an article may have been deleted in violation of deletion policy, the main focus of a deletion review should be on whether policy was followed. The relative merits of keeping or deleting the article should be secondary.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes. This better reflects what is in the best interest of the community. FloNight 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Paul August ☎ 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  2. Good heavens, no. Process-wonkery at its second-worst. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reconsidering based on re-reading of the text. I agree with James. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm going to be conservative here and oppose this instead of abstaining. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't even like my own statement of it in the comment below. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Disagree. That means that some really bad articles that got DRVed recently would be undeleted because of a lack of a quality statement by the admin. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Just not comfortable with this. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion:
Comment Perhaps it might better read, "the initial focus". In other words, if it's first seen that the deletion was out-of-process, that should suffice for an undeletion? What that establishes is that any out-of-process deletion that's challenged will trigger a fuller consideration, kinda like when a prod is escalated to an AfD. Abstain with the current wording, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstention withdrawn; I do not want my comment to reduce the required majority. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since we nearly have a motion passed regarding Freakofnurture, let's consider taking the time to fix this. Here's the rationale:
  • I believe that one of the major contributions to the escalation was the fact that the DRV discussion hardly touched on the process issues. From the remedy below, we nearly all agree that the initial deletion of the article, by Yanksox, was out of process and inappropriate. I don't think that the inappropriateness of this deletion from a process standpoint could have been more clear. Yet, there were a substantial number of DRV voters, many of them experienced Wikipedians who should have known better, who used this as an opportunity to try to get rid of the article with only the 50% !vote required at DRV rather than the supermajority used at AfD (DRV page).
  • I agree that process wonkery is a bad thing. We have too many low-value processes, and sometimes they get in the way. This is not one of those cases. It is case where a) many people disagree, b) many people care deeply about the outcome, and c) some people were trying to subvert process to their advantage. In essence, they were venue shopping and trying to avoid AfD, because they knew they would lose at AfD. The result was chaos, and with the escalation added in we have a mess.
  • I think that the inappropriate votes (i.e. the votes endorsing deletion despite the obvious out-of-process action) led people who wanted to keep the article to be upset about the direction things were going, and led them to conclude that since process wasn't being followed by those who disagreed with them, they should not feel bound by it themselves.
  • It is clear to me that if everyone (or even most people) had done the right thing, the deletion review would have run to completion, the article would have been kept, and the article may have then been listed at AfD. I think we have to support that.
Now, I'm happy to be flexible about the wording, because I agree that we don't want a finding that is a gift to process wonks. But I do believe that some sort of a finding is called for in support of the idea that, while the merits of the article may be a factor, DRV is mainly about process -- especially in those cases where there is a relatively clear failure to respect process.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expectations and role of administrators

4) In general, Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users, particularly with regard to principles such as assume good faith and no personal attacks. Administrators are expected to keep their cool and should not use administrator-specific capabilities casually or without thought. They should lead by example and serve as a model of the proper editing behavior to which other users should aspire.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 04:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Edit wars considered harmful

5) The essence of an edit war is repeated reversion of an action as a substitute for discussion leading to consensus. Edit wars undermine the consensus-based decisionmaking upon which Wikipedia depends.

The practice of carrying on a discussion in the comment field for edits or log entries is unhelpful and is not a suitable substitute for genuine discussion in an appropriate forum.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ignoring all rules

6) Wikipedia has many policies and processes that affect deletion and undeletion of pages. Where there is strong community support (or minimally, a lack of objections), it is sometimes permissible to sidestep or otherwise take liberties with these process. Those who ignore all rules should proceed slowly and deliberately; act only when informed by any existing discussion, history, or logs; and should be prepared to explain the reasoning for their actions. If ensuing discussion shows an absence of community support, practitioners of Ignore All Rules should have the grace to revert their own actions.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight 21:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 04:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Essjay (Talk) 00:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early closure of discussions based on WP:SNOW is harmful

7) The Committee notes that the "Snowball clause" is not policy. Early closure of discussions on WP:SNOW grounds denies some Wikipedians the opportunity to comment and can lead to escalation due to the lack of a discussion venue.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 05:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Closing discussions early can be helpful in some situations. This is a too negative take on early closures. FloNight 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I routinely close RFAs early as unlikely to achieve consensus, and this has been described as "per WP:SNOW." I believe doing so is a positive step, not a negative one; the remedy for a few misguided closes is not to denounce the policy. Essjay (Talk) 00:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No, it's not policy, it's common sense. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 7.1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early closure of discussions based on WP:SNOW is harmful

7.1) The Committee notes that the "Snowball clause" is not policy, and also recognizes that there will be some cases where the benefits of early closure outweigh the drawbacks. However, in general, early closure of discussions on WP:SNOW grounds denies some Wikipedians the opportunity to comment and can lead to escalation due to the lack of a discussion venue.

Support:
  1. A little bit more specific and also recognizes cases where it is applied. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree with this. Essjay (Talk) 00:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Though this is not a licence for others to bash heads against a brick wall. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill Lokshin 20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A little hesitantly. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
  9. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Yanksox' deletion of Daniel Brandt was inappropriate

1) The deletion of Daniel Brandt by Yanksox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was inappropriate. It was not supported by Wikipedia:Deletion policy. In particular, the article as a whole did not fall under the WP:LIVING guidelines for deletion of unsourced derogatory information, and the article did not fit any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Yanksox did not engage in a sufficient amount of on-wiki consensus-building or discussion, either before or after the fact, to justify Yanksox' actions under our doctrine of ignore all rules.

Yanksox' subsequent re-deletion of the article without meaningful discussion was also inappropriate, and Yanksox' comments on the deletion log for these and other related actions were unnecessarily inflammatory.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Paul August ☎ 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bumm13's undeletion of Daniel Brandt was inappropriate

2) Bumm13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undeleted the article while a deletion review was running 14-4 in support of endorsing deletion. Bumm13 was aware of the deletion review and undeleted the article anyway, without applying a "temporary undeletion" template or otherwise linking to the deletion review.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Perhaps not the best thing to have done given that article was at DrV, however Bumm13 had a reasonable justification for undeleting a clearly out-of-process delete. Paul August ☎ 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Gaillimh's early closure of the deletion review was inappropriate

3) Gaillimh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed the deletion review, citing WP:SNOW, while active discussion was underway, and then compounded this mistake by attempting to force closure through an edit war.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Geni undeleted the article twice rather than discuss its deletion

4) Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), despite being aware of the discussions on the deletion review page, undeleted the article twice rather than participate in discussion. Geni has been criticized for such behavior in the past.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Second choice now if 4.1 doesn't pass.[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (Either this one or 4.1 are fine by me. FloNight 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (all versions are fine with me)[reply]
  7. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 4.1. Paul August ☎ 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC) In favour of 4.1 instead.[reply]
  3. Prefer 4.1 jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 4.1 Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Geni, with history

4.1) Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), despite being aware of the discussions on the deletion review page, undeleted the article twice rather than participate in discussion. Geni has a history of inappropriate use of admin tools. Notable misuses have included a protect/unprotect war on an Arbitration Committee election page, an edit war over the site notice, and unprotection of an article listed at WP:OFFICE.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Proposed with a summary of the evidence necessary to support remedies being contemplated.[reply]
  2. Better to be explicit. Paul August ☎ 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Either this one or 4 are fine by me. FloNight 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mackensen (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill Lokshin 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Geni undeleted the article twice rather than discuss its deletion

4.1.1) Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), despite being aware of the discussions on the deletion review page, undeleted the article twice rather than participate in discussion.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I think it presents the situation better to separate 4.1 into two findings.[reply]
  2. Support all of them, including these split-up versions of the previous. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 16:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill Lokshin 18:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 06:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. OK sure I guess. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC) I don't understand why we're splitting this. The decisions we issue already tend to be fragmented. That makes them read poorly and makes the overall reasoning for the case unclear. Unless there is a portion of the wording to which one of us objects, I believe we are best off voting on things in blocks, and in fact would prefer to see us move towards more homogeneous opinions rather than more fragmented ones.[reply]
Abstain:
I guess I'm not quite sure what the point is in voting for one statement of two things or two statements containing the exact same things; do some of us support one and oppose the other? Or is it just formal? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geni has a history of inappropriate use of admin tools

4.1.2) Geni has a history of inappropriate use of admin tools. Notable misuses have included a protect/unprotect war on an Arbitration Committee election page, an edit war over the site notice, and unprotection of an article listed at WP:OFFICE.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I think it presents the situation better to separate 4.1 into two findings.[reply]
  2. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill Lokshin 18:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight 06:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Doc glasgow deleted the article inappropriately

5) Despite being aware that the deletion of the article was controversial, Doc glasgow deleted it. As a mitigating factor, Doc was participating fully in discussion at WP:DRV and discussion there supported deletion.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 17:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Mailer diablo deleted the article inappropriately

6) Despite being aware that the article was being repeatedly deleted and undeleted, Mailer diablo deleted it. As a mitigating factor, Mailer diablo was participating in discussion at WP:DRV and discussion there supported deletion. Also, Mailer diablo re-created the article with a notice directing users to the deletion review page.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 17:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Freakofnurture undeleted the article inappropriately

7) While Freakofnurture's first undeletion of the article is defensible based on undeletion policy, this user's subsequent undeletion is not, having been made in the awareness that the article was being repeatedly undeleted and redeleted.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wording's a little awkward, but I'm going to leave it as is. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While Freakofnature has a reasonable defense of his second undeletion i.e. that it was done with the agreement of CesarB, given the situation, his undelete was inappropriate. Paul August ☎ 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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.

Yanksox desysopped

1) For repeatedly deleting an article in defiance of policy and without discussion, the emergency revocation of Yanksox' administrator privileges is left in place indefinitely. Yanksox may reapply for adminship privileges at any time or may appeal to this Committee for reinstatement.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm a bit hesitant about the second part, but it restates what is already done and also allows for extenuating circumstances where he would be forced to return to the Committee. In general, though, I would only support the first part (reapplication through RfA.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Paul August ☎ 14:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Gaillimh banned

2) For inappropriate early closure of a Deletion Review discussion, and edit warring regarding the same, Gaillimh's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 10 days.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 17:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Geni desysopped

3) For repeated undeletion of an article without discussion and in violation of policy, and in light of repeated related problems in the past, the emergency revocation of Geni's administrator privileges is left in place. Geni's administrator privileges are to be restored after period of 60 days has elapsed from the time of the emergency revocation.

Support:
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Second choice Fred Bauder 06:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Geni has been emergency desysoped three times now and has a venerable history of wheel-warring. The Arbitration Committee has made it plain in the past that such behaviour is unacceptable and restoration of privileges without explicit community consent would be inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Geni is an unrepentant wheel warrior; he's been doing this for at least two years and nobody has been willing to do anything about it. Essjay (Talk) 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Geni's comments on the workshop page do not give me confidence to return the tools without a RFA. FloNight 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Geni desysopped

3.1) For repeated undeletion of an article without discussion and in violation of policy, and in light of repeated related problems in the past, the emergency revocation of Geni's administrator privileges is left in place. After a period of 60 days has elapsed from the time of the emergency revocation, Geni may seek restoration of administrator privileges either via the usual means or by appeal to this Committee.

Support:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill Lokshin 04:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fred Bauder 06:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (second choice; prefer 3.2)[reply]
    jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Also changing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Changing position. James F. (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC) I believe that the perception that this remedy is more severe than that contemplated for Yanksox is problematic. The 60 day delay has little practical effect (other than perhaps sparing us the spectacle of a failed RFA in the next 60 days) since the likelihood of either user is passing RFA or making a successful appeal is near zero. If a 60 day delay is justified here, it should also apply to Yanksox unless sound reasoning for different treatment is present.[reply]
  2. Convinced by UnC. Good point. James F. (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Prefer 3.2[reply]
  4. Took a while, but agree with UC. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆
Abstain:
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC) I have updated the wording slightly for clarity, and will vote after some discussion.[reply]

Geni desysopped

3.2) For repeated undeletion of an article without discussion and in violation of policy, and in light of repeated related problems in the past, the emergency revocation of Geni's administrator privileges is left in place indefinitely. Geni may reapply for adminship privileges at any time or may appeal to this Committee for reinstatement.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC) No reason for the 60 day delay or for different wording than for Yanksox.[reply]
  2. I have no problem with this. Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Distant 2nd choice. I think the Geni and the site will benefit from Geni taking a break from using his admin tools. Plus, I think RFA done too soon may hurt his chances of regaining admin tools. FloNight 18:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Second Only choice. Geni is a great boon to the project in much of their work. | Please note that I would very much be minded to restore Geni's sysop priv.s rather than via RfA, which could be very messy and highly unhelpful for the project. James F. (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill Lokshin 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Paul August ☎ 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice; UninvitedCompany raises some good points, and I don't see why the 60 day period is necessary. If the community believes that Geni should have the administrative tools back in the 60 days following the closure of this case (well, technically, 53, discounting the 7 days for the duration of a RfA), who are we to prohibit it? Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Doc glasgow, Bumm13, and Mailer diablo cautioned

4) Doc glasgow, Bumm13, and Mailer diablo are strongly cautioned regarding involvement in repeated deletion/undeletion of pages.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Freakofnurture

5) For undeleting an article in opposition to policy and consensus, the Committee believes that a brief suspension of Freakofnurture's administrator privileges would be appropriate. Since this has already occurred, Freakofnurture's administrator privileges have been restored.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fred Bauder 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjay (Talk) 00:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight 03:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Paul August ☎ 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Charles Matthews 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Note:
I have updated the wording since some users expressed concern that it wasn't the same as that used in other related remedies. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Freakofnurure's administrator privileges have been restored, I've reworded this. Paul August ☎ 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "are to be restored" to "have been restored" to accord with events. Paul August ☎ 18:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

This should probably go on the talk page, but I'm placing this request here so that it's more visible in order to fully ensure that everyone knows what will and won't pass if this is closed right now. Thatcher (or another clerk or another person familiar with the rules), can you confirm what will pass and won't pass if this case were closed as it is right now? I know you've replied to a similar question on the talk page already, but there's been a few changes and I wanted to make sure I'm understanding everything correctly. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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.

(Updated 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

  • Principles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7.1 pass. All versions of principle 3 (DRV) now fail.
  • Findings of fact 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 pass.
4, 4.1, and 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 all have 7 or more votes. Since 4.1 has the most votes and the least oppostion, 4.1 passes.
  • Remedies 1, 2, 3.2, 4, and 5 pass.
I think the greater number of support is the better determining factor, so in this case that would mean 4.1 passes but 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 do not. Paul August ☎ 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. Thatcher131 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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.

Support:

  1. Close. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. FloNight 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. Mackensen (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC) While I would like to see us spend some more time to fix principle 3 (on the role of deletion review) so that it is acceptable to enough of us to pass it, I believe that further delay would be unfair to User:Freakofnurture.[reply]
  4. Close. I agree about the unfairness to Freakofnurture, of further delay. However we could get around that by passing the motion: "Restoration of Freakofnurture's admin privileges" above. I've just voted in support of that. Paul August ☎ 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Charles Matthews 11:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. James F. (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Close. Kirill Lokshin 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Oppose, since I've just made a proposal to split Finding 4.1. Paul August ☎ 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Switched to "close" Paul August ☎ 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose for now until everyone gets a chance to look at Paul's suggestion of spliting the findings and to make sure that everyone's happy with what's going to pass and what's not going to pass. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose; with jpg's abstention, Principle 3.1 passes, and I cannot condone this case closing with such a shocking mis-step in place. James F. (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Opposition withdrawn. James F. (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of order: abstentions on a single point reduce the majority of active voters required? Hmmm. I'm not sure I approve, but I'm going back and turning my abstention into a comment. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's how it works. James F. (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. After some thought and discussion I believe we should be able to pass the motion regarding Freakofnurture and continue our work on FoF 3.1.1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Proposed_decision&oldid=1109064284"