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 10 active arbitrators and none are recused, so 6 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.

Place those on /Workshop.

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.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion. An administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee deems otherwise, for purposes of applying this principle, whether or not the arbitration case is accepted.

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) The addition of links to or material derived from sites that engage in attacks and harassment against Wikipedia users into Wikipedia is inappropriate, and may be removed by any editor. Deliberate addition of such material may be grounds for blocking.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Note that the sites being those "that engage in attacks and harassment against Wikipedia users" - I don't think that this is at all "broad". James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Linking to the site and the attack material is the issue addressed here not recognizing that these sites exist. FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Probably too broad, particularly as some sites that do this (albeit incidentally) are notable in their own right. Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Too broad and generalized. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'd like to see this more specific. First off, sites don't engage in attacks and harassment; people using the site do. (Guns don't kill; people with guns do.) Secondly, intent and degree are both missing in the engagement; how much attacking is required before a site has crossed the line? This needs some language like "sites that commonly include attacks and harassment" or perhaps even "sites with policies that encourage attacks and harassment". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

3) The addition of links to or material derived from Encyclopedia Dramatica into Wikipedia is inappropriate, and may be removed by any editor. Deliberate addition of such material may be grounds for blocking.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I know that something similar to this has passed in the past in MONGO, but I'm just not comfortable issuing such a blanket ban on the site or its materials. I prefer 3.1, which is a bit more specific. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Flcelloguy. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

3.1) The addition of links to or material derived from Encyclopedia Dramatica into Wikipedia that infringe on an editor's privacy, spreads falsehoods or libel, or is solely intended as an attack page is inappropriate, and may be removed by any editor. Deliberate addition of such material may be grounds for blocking.

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Sort of halfway-pregnant-type approach here. We don't know if the material "spreads falsehoods" a priori, and I see no reason to give ED the benefit of the doubt. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with Kirill. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

3.2) The addition of any allegation about a Wikipedia editor derived from material on Encyclopedia Dramatica into Wikipedia is prohibited, regardless of whether or not the allegation is true. Such additions may be removed by any editor, and, if deliberate, may be grounds for blocking.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Current practice is no links, no material of any sort. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. "None" suffices. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4) The Arbitration Committee may determine independently, without a case being accepted, that circumstances surrounding an editor's voluntary de-sysopping are sufficiently controversial that admin rights may not be regained without an RfA. In the absence of such a determination, reinstatement remains the responsibility and privilege of the bureaucrats.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. We need to leave room for us to do what is best in rare cases that may differ from the normal way situations are handled. 4.1 may give the false impression that we can not do what is best for the encyclopedia based on our best judgement if the community does not have a request in front of us. FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Prefer 4.1; we probably shouldn't be getting involved unless someone explicitly asks us. Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Kirill. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Kirill. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

4.1) If a request for arbitration involving a voluntarily de-sysopped editor is made, the Arbitration Committee may determine independently, without the case being accepted, that the circumstances surrounding that editor's voluntary de-sysopping are sufficiently controversial that admin rights may not be regained without an RfA. In the absence of such a determination, reinstatement remains the responsibility and privilege of the bureaucrats.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (C)
6. Changed back. We do need a case. There's nothing stopping us from requesting a third party to file a case. So it amounts to the same thing. We don't need to extend our power in this regard. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. No - we do not need a case to do this, if we so choose. This is an executive rather than jurisprudence issue. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. We don't need to be asked. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

5) The rollback tool, restricted to administrators, is used to perform quick reverts of vandalism and test edits with a passive edit summary, and is especially useful for quickly reverting large-scale vandalism. There are cases where use of rollback on non-vandalism edits is acceptable, such as circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. Rollback may also be used to revert edits made by banned users while they are banned, since they are not allowed to make those edits.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Use of the rollback tool on single edits implies characterization of those edits as vandalism or otherwise deliberately disruptive. Rollback, therefore, must never be used to revert edits made in content disputes. It is also inappropriate to use rollback to intimidate a disagreeing editor. Administrators should use caution when rolling back edits made by established contributors, since it assumes ill will on their part, and should assume good faith appropriately. Established contributors whose edits are rolled back are often insulted or angered as a result.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Minor change of "not" to "never" to underscore. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'd rather not restrict this to the admin rollback tool, though; popups are just as obnoxious when misused. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) Questions asked with good faith and with no malicious intentions should always be welcome on RfA except in extreme circumstances. Candidates, per the accepted convention, may always choose to decline to answer some of the questions.

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose per Kirill. FloNight 15:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. This doesn't actually mean anything significant unless we define "extreme circumstances". Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Can't quite figure out what this accomplishes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7.1) Questions asked in good faith, without malicious intent, are welcome in all aspects of Wikipedian work, discussion, and decision-making. Where the subject is a particular person (such as with a candidate requesting sysophood), such questions can always be left un-answered. In extreme cases, were a supervising editor (such as a Bureaucrat, in the above example, or a Sysop in the case of a deletion request) feels that an open question platform would be damaging to the project, such a rule could be suspended.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. A more detailed version of what I was aiming for. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. I do not have a problem with us stating what is already customary. FloNight 15:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I think this is what you were driving at; not sure about it personally, however. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Still not sure of the purpose. Of course people can always ask good faith questions; of course people can refuse to answer them. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Philwelch (talk · contribs) has edited for more than three years and has almost 10,000 edits. He has been an administrator since November 8, 2005 [1] and has taken hundreds of administrator actions. Philwelch voluntarily relinquished his sysop access on February 4, 2007, after this arbitration case was filed against him.

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight 15:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) During his tenure as an administrator, Philwelch blocked several established contributors, including Aksi great, Dionyseus, John Reid, ThuranX, Centrx, and David Levy. Several of these blocks were quickly overturned by another administrator after an unblock request was posted and/or discussion took place on the administrators' noticeboard. In at least some of these instances, there was a strong consensus that the blocks were inappropriate, should not have been imposed, and violated the blocking policy.

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight 15:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Philwelch has been in numerous revert wars, has violated WP:3RR multiple times, and has been blocked at least three times since April 2005 for violating 3RR. [2] [3]

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight 15:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Philwelch has been uncivil in discussions, and has made personal attacks: [4].

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight 15:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) Philwelch, by blocking and threatening to block users whom he was currently engaged in disputes with, misused his administrative powers.

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Werdna (talk · contribs) underwent a fourth RfA, which was extremely heated and controversial, in late January 2007. The request was closed as unsuccessful.

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) Konstable (talk · contribs) added a question to Werdna's RfA on February 1, 2007, pertaining to IRC logs published in Encyclopedia Dramatica. [5] Cyde (talk · contribs) then removed the question [6], citing a previous Arbitration Committee decision that links to Encyclopedia Dramatica were inappropriate. Yandman (talk · contribs) then restored the question, removing the link to the log. [7] Cyde then reverted again, removing the whole question and calling it "defamation" and "clearly not acceptable." [8] The question was then restored by Majorly (talk · contribs), who stated that the question was "perfectly acceptable." [9]

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight 15:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

8) The question was then removed after approximately five hours by Philwelch, who cited that "off-wiki IRC conversations are never cause for action on the wiki". [10] A series of reverts between Philwelch and Majorly and David Levy (talk · contribs) then occured. Philwelch twice used the administrative rollback tool to remove the question and also called the question "trolling".

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. FloNight 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

9) Philwelch then inappropriately blocked David Levy for 24 hours for "trolling" at Werdna's RfA [11]; the block was overturned very quickly, within three minutes, by Steel359 (talk · contribs). [12]

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight 15:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Block was appropriate Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC) No, made a mistake here. Fred Bauder 20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

10) The addition of the question to Werdna's RfA was done in good faith, and because it could have potentially affected how people at RfA viewed Werdna's ability to be a sysop on Wikipedia, should not have been removed. However, links to or deriving from these attack sites are generally discouraged, and particular care should be taken when viewing such logs from attack sites because of their potential for not being authentic. Werdna also had the right to refuse to answer the question.

Support:

1. I think this summarizes the situation well. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. We should not stoop to letting ED play detective for us merely because it might be useful. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   If they want to be useful, they can - we can always revisit this. The ball is in their court. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Links from drama sites are inappropriate. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Think that this is not a helpful finding of fact. May cause more problems instead of making a clear statement about this issue. But I do not disagree with the facts as stated in it. FloNight 15:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

1) Because Philwelch gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA. He remains a user in good standing.

Support:

1. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Though it might be an idea to note that we might re-sysop him at a later point if necessary; RfA is toxic as it is, and re-vistors don't get a pass after we've soiled their name, however lightly. James F. (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Feel that the last sentence may send the wrong message. Without remedies that address his personal attacks and inappropriate editing, this seems to condone these actions. FloNight 16:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Prefer 1.1. Paul August ☎ 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Swiched. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1.1) Because Philwelch gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA.

Support:

1. Without last sentence. FloNight 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Paul August ☎ 22:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice; I see "user in good standing" as meaning that someone is not under any restrictions, blocks, or bans. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Fred Bauder 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. I can support this too. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

• Principles 1, 3, 4.1, 5, and 6 pass.
• Findings of fact 1 through 9 pass.
• Remedy 1.1 passes.

Please advise of any comments or questions. Newyorkbrad 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1. Close. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. Kirill Lokshin 10:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close Paul August ☎ 18:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close Fred Bauder 00:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Close. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]