Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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 chooses. 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.

On this case, no arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 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.

Contents

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

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

Authority of an administrator to ban under Probation

1) A single administrator, whether involved in editing of the article or not, may ban a user under a Probation remedy imposed by the Arbitration Committee, unless more than one is required by the terms of the remedy. The sole recourse for overturning such a ban is a successful request for arbitration alleging abuse of discretion by the administrator. Objections may be made to the banning administrator, but no other administrator may overturn the ban.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Though ideally heavily involved adminstrators should try to ask another admin to look into a situtation before issuing a ban themselves. - SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. What? Involved administrators should never make the ban. And we have always allowed for probation bans to be discussed and overturned by other admins at WP:ANI or elsewhere. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    I would keep the door to wheelwarring closed. Fred Bauder 17:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Also not happy about giving involved admins a free rein here. It's very easy to be unfair AND to be seen as unfair in such a situation. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

Resetting of Probation

2) Probation which is limited to a term is not reset by bans imposed under it.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Users on Probation

3) Users who are on Probation remain free to edit in the same manner as other users. Unless they are banned from a specific article or area they may continue to engage in the same give and take as other editors.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Failure of Probation

4) Probation may not be available as a remedy in instances where it fails due to lack of administrative support. In such cases it may be necessary to fall back on the remedies used prior to development of Probation, usually bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Communication regarding polls

5) Users may communicate in a reasonable manner with other users regarding active polls which for one reason or another they feel the other users might wish to weigh in on.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Reasonable being the important word. POV spamming about polls is a real problem. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Note, of course, that this does not impact on the general prohibition on binding votes (polls being non-binding) - see Wikipedia:No binding decisions, et al.. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrative discretion in closing polls

6) Administrators may take into consideration all relevant factors when closing a poll. These may include the degree to which the poll drew a significant number of voters, type and extent of campaigning regarding the poll, whether the poll is for reversal of a unilateral action or any other relevant factor.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and there are more important things than raw numbers. - SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. I would hope always to defend the principle that admins are given discretion, and especially in 'thankless' areas, where they are going to be given a hard time by one or other side. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Administrative action by involved administrators

7) Administrative action requiring discretion requires knowledge of the history and details of issue in question. It is often much easier for an administrator who is involved in the issue to know such factors, provided they are not strongly biased regarding the matter.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I'm vary wary of giving involved admins carte blanche. Except in cases of vandalism and copyright enforcement, involved admins should never use their tools. That's very common practice. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Likewise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

Copyright violations

8) Wikipedia:Copyright violations forbids use of material copied from published works. The information in sources may be used if credited. Failure to credit a source is plagiarism.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Naming conventions

9) Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Choice of article name

10) In addition to the principle that the most common English usage should be used for the title of an article, should conflict arise regarding which title is appropriate "choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications", Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive_names.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Ban for disruption

11) Users who disrupt an article or set of articles by edit warring or other disruptive behavior may be banned from the affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Neutral point of view

12) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view be fairly represented in an article regarding the subject.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Verifiability and reliable sources

13) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. With the proviso that Reliable Sources is not policy but guideline and not all of it has consensus, IMO Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is editing by Guy Montag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) of Deir Yassin massacre and administrative actions by KimvdLinde (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Guy Montag on Probation

2) On October 9, 2005 Guy Montag was placed on Probation for one year with respect to articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber#Guy Montag placed on probation. A ban was twice imposed with respect to Deir Yassiin massacre, once for POV disruption (the revision and title change), and again for copyright violation, but lifted both times when other administrators objected - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive1#User:Guy Montag Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Deir Yassin and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Guy Montag banned from Deir Yassin massacre (2).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. James F. (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Move to Battle of Deir Yassin

3) On June 29, 2006 Guy Montag moved Deir Yassin massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin with the comment, "Title does not cover the entire scope of events and is only a small claim about events that happened during/ and or after battle; hence the name." [1]. This was combined with a "total rewrite" of the article, see Talk:Battle of Deir Yassin#Total Rewrite and subsequent discussion.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

The poll on moving

4) Following the move there was a poll regarding the move Talk:Deir Yassin massacre#The vote on moving. The result was even, but based on "votestalking" (campaigning) by Guy Montag the vote, when closed by KimvdLinde, was declared to support a move back to massacre.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Soliciting of votes by Guy Montag

5) Guy Montag solicited other users regarding the poll on changing the title to the article in a reasonable manner [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Abuse of discretion by KimvdLinde in closing poll

6) KimvdLinde did not abuse her discretion as an administrator in taking into consideration the campaigning by Guy Montag with respect to the poll. Neither did she abuse her discretion by closing a poll regarding which she was an involved editor, discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin massacre: move poll closure review requested and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#What to do if a move poll is determined by partisan reasons?.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. She proposed, supported, and defended the move. She should not have closed the discussion. How hard is it for an involved admin to ask for help from another of the hundreds of active admins on WP:AN? Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. It would have looked a lot better for an uninvolved admin to close it. I don't think it would necessarily have made any concrete difference, however. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

Title

7) "Deir Yassin massacre" is a much more commonly used name than "Battle of Deir Yassin"

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ok, the content implication doesn't bother me here. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Content ruling, and, erm, the "Google test" isn't the best one to use for non-English-speaking events. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Steps a little too far towards ruling on content, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. A quick Google search shows this is certainly the case, but this is a ruling on content. - SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Guy Montag

8) Guy Montag copied and pasted substantial sections from various websites for his rewrite of the article, see [7] and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence#Copyright violations.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Original research by Guy Montag

9) Guy Montag supported his move of the article with original reasoning [8], see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre/Evidence#Original research: massacre definition and subsequent sections.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Failure of Probation

10) Guy Montag disrupted Deir Yassin massacre by tendentious editing and copyright violations which would have supported an article ban under the terms of his Probation, however, he was not banned other than temporarily, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive1#User:Guy Montag Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Deir Yassin and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#Guy Montag banned from Deir Yassin massacre (2).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
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.

Guy Montag banned

1) Guy Montag is banned from articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Guy Montag Probation extended

2) Guy Montag's Probation under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy Montag placed on probation is extended to include one year from the final date of this decision.

Support:
  1. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. If only the sysops will actually use the tools we give them. Revisiting cases and users isn't the best use of our time. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Submitted for consideration Fred Bauder 15:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Administrators encouraged

3) KimvdLinde and other administrators are encouraged to effectively enforce Guy Montag's Probation in appropriate circumstances.

Support:
  1. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Submitted for consideration Fred Bauder 15:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Guy Montag violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 22:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dmcdevit·t 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

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.

As of 21 Sept. 2006, 19:02:

  • Proposed principles, all pass. Pass 5-1, principles 1 and 7. Pass 6-0, principles 2 through 6 and 8 through 13.
  • Proposed findings of fact, all pass except 7. Pass 6-0, findings 1 through 5 and 8 through 10. Pass 5-1 finding 6.
  • Proposed remedies, all pass. Pass 6-0, remedy 1. Pass 5-0-1, remedies 2 and 3.
  • Proposed enforcement, pass 6-0.

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.

  1. I think we are done. I move we close. Fred Bauder 12:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close. Charles Matthews 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 13:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)