Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision

Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

=Proposed final decision=

Collegiality
1) Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.

The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming".


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cavalry (Message me) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * From the MickMacNee case

Neutral point of view and undue weight
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as an article should not be unduly pro-topic, it should not be unduly anti-topic either SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Something I feel very strongly about. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Bias and prejudice
3) An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly a true principle, for reasons that were discussed at length in the Noleander case. Work done by the words "gratuitously" and "invidious" should not be underestimated; legitimate criticism of any group or individual, consistent with applicable policies, is not proscribed. The application of the principle to this case is not as clear, in my view, as it was in Noleander case for which I wrote it, but I can see enough of a connection to the substance of the case that I can support its inclusion here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * NPOV contributions that use RS'es to demonstrate that certain "specific racial, religious, or ethnic groups" have particular traits is not prohibited. If one is to observe that in America, Asians tend to be better educated than whites, is that promoting a stereotype against white people?  I disagree in general with the principle of labeling edits improper based on their outcome rather than their methodology, and don't see any quick way to repair this.  We can all agree that most POV editing with respect to these categories of persons is improper, but I don't think this specific principle is the reason I'd choose to label those edits as improper. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The dispute in this case concerns certain so-called "new religious movements"; applying a principle regarding "religious groups" to the matter seems to beg the underlying question. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1 as trying to de-obfuscate (i.e. clarify the bad bits.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 3.1 - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Oh lord, it's going to be one of those principles. Don't let's fight. Not essential, move on. Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with idea, but might warrant rewording. Will muse on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Bias and prejudice
3.1) An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as insinuating, endorsing or promoting bias and prejudice either against or for the members, beliefs or tenets of the group.
 * Support:
 * Try to pull it together this way Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak second choice, prefer original wording, for reasons that are probably too remote from the essence of this case to be worth dilating upon here (those curious can take a look at the "blue people" thought-experiment discussion on the Noleander workshop talkpage). Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 03:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * While I appreciate the effort, it's the "can reasonably be perceived as" bit that I find troublesome. Fact is, there are plenty of hypersensitive people on Wikipedia floating around any topic of high emotional content. What such editors sincerely to believe to be reasonably so perceived may be dispassionate, NPOV editing. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As in #3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer #3 SirFozzie (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer #3. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Biographies of living people
4) It is a core policy of the encyclopedia that Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with a high regard for accuracy and neutrality, using only high quality sources. BLP articles may never be used as a vehicle for aggrandising or diminishing the subject.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Related ground is covered in the principles in the Manipulation of BLPs proposed decision that I posted yesterday. This formulation is fully consistent with mine, and also enjoys the virtue of being significantly shorter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the reference to "aggrandising or diminishing" should not be taken to preclude accurately reflecting the content of the sources. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cavalry (Message me) 16:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Fair criticism and personal attacks
5) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse - in particular, personal attacks - are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This could well have been included in the Manipulation of BLPs decision as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A good combination of two previously separated but very related principles, kudos to Roger. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cavalry (Message me) 16:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
6) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Cirt's editing
1) According to statements in Evidence, and by his own admission, Cirt has, against policy, placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 02:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While not exactly the wording I might have used, this is the nub of the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the hubs of the issue here. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 20:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorsing based on his own admission and proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cavalry (Message me) 17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Jayen466's conduct
2) Jayen466 has sometimes engaged in inappropriate conduct in respect of Cirt, primarily by being over-focused on Cirt's editing and by being indiscriminate in his accusations about Cirt. (cf Tryptofish's evidence and Cbrick77's evidence)


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind our encyclopedic purpose when judging the gravity of findings 1 and 2. Cool Hand Luke 02:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 20:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * just the sheer volume of discussion surrounding issues with these two. Ongoing disputes such as these are highly problematic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had to think about this long and hard. The tipping point was from the discussion on the talk page where Jayen acknowledged that an off-WP request to search through private information (that the person who obtained the information had no right to) for information relating to Cirt was not something he should have done, but he considered it necessary in the bigger context. SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I originally said. Cool Hand Luke 18:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * There is a fine line between dedicated pursuit of a solution to a significant wikiproblem, on the one hand, and disproportionate emphasis on a particular issue or editor culminating in "wikistalking" or "wikihounding" on the other. Reasonable people may disagree on when the line has been crossed, and in some cases this may be an "I know it when I see it" type of thing (for an example of a case in which I saw it and knew it, see here). Despite a few missteps by Jayen466 as identified in the evidence, that fact is that he did identify and help to resolve what Cirt has now conceded and the Committee concludes was a significant pattern of BLP issues. Thus, while I don't endorse every word that Jayen466 ever wrote about Cirt, I'm not convinced that Jayen466 seriously crossed the line, and even less so that he crossed so far or so over over it as to warrant an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen466's encouragement for the hacker/leader to publish threads from our private mailing list, which I did not know about when I initially voted on the case, was highly inappropriate. I find his argument on the talkpage that he was seeking information about this Committee's discussions about Cirt, rather than about Cirt himself, mitigating only to a very limited extent. I am letting my oppose vote stand, primarily for reasons analogous to those identified by Risker in her talkpage comments, but this is now a much closer call for me than it was previously, and Jayen466 should bear this in mind going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Brad. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the gravity of the problem and the response, I am now convinced that this does not rise to the level of ArbCom finding. Cool Hand Luke 18:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I find that he came very close to the line (here and possibly elsewhere), but I am not wholly convinced that he crossed the line. Thus, the oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cavalry (Message me) 17:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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.

Cirt topic-banned from new religious movement ("NRM") articles
1) Cirt is prohibited from making any edit of whatever nature to articles relating to new religious movements or their adherents, broadly construed, or to any associated biographies of living people.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorsing based on his own admission and proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cavalry (Message me) 17:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Cirt restricted for all BLPs
2) Cirt is prohibited from directly making any edit within the scope of the biography of living persons policy without first discussing the proposed edit and obtaining explicit consensus for making it on either the relevant talk page or at the relevant noticeboard.


 * Support:
 * Please see the evidence of misrepresented sources, including those for non-NRM articles. This is one of the most severe problems we can have in a widely-available reference work with a real-world impact on living people. Cool Hand Luke 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer 1 over this one, but still find the balance that this could/would be an appropriate remedy. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This editor was given the benefit of the doubt both at their RFA and during the Scientology case on the basis of assurances that they'd seen the errors of their earlier ways. Yes, this restriction is broad but it is probably the only way of preventing, at least in the short term, similar serious problems popping up - probably unwittingly - in other BLP areas.  Roger Davies  talk 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The distinction is between a biography of one of the Justices, which would be covered under Cirt's proposal, and an article about one of the Court's decisions, which would have to mention the Justices who participated (in edits that are "subject to the BLP policy") but would not be biographical about them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course ;) The question is whether we can meaningfully and unambiguously make that distinction in a remedy, given the opportunities for subtle creep in the non-strictly-biographical aspects. If you can come up with something that does this, I'll seriously consider supporting it.  Roger Davies  talk 19:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Roger. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Striking while I consider Jclemens' comments The Cavalry (Message me) 14:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having considered the other comments, I'm still inclined to say "Per Roger". The Cavalry (Message me) 17:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * I think we should try topic banning Cirt from new religious movement related biographies of living persons. Obviously, if there are further problems, measures such as this could then be imposed. PhilKnight (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cool Hand Luke regarding the seriousness of the issue and the need for a proportionate remedy. However, this proposal is too broad and would effectively ban Cirt from editing any article except perhaps for ones concerning purely abstract concepts. For example, Cirt sometimes writes articles about U.S. Supreme Court cases. If he writes "in 2010, Jones sued Smith, and the case reached the Supreme Court, where the opinion was written by Justice Scalia," he has mentioned three living people, and all three mentions are "within the scope of the BLP policy" although all three are incidental and harmless. In addition, his routinely having to ask for permission to make routine, passing references to living people on the BLP noticeboard (individual article talkpages don't generally have enough readers at a given time to reach "consensus" on non-controversial matters) risks distracting attention from more serious BLP issues. I am open to an alternative, intermediate remedy proposal and will propose one if other arbitrators express interest in considering it as opposed to adopting PhilKnight's approach. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely, Supreme Court justices would also be caught by the topic ban this editor themself proposed, ie a topic ban from political BLPs.  Roger Davies  talk 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is overly broad, but necessary as a practical alternative. I'm more inclined to see if restricting the areas where problematic behavior was observed will solve the issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * too broad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see this level of sanction as compatible with Cirt keeping his administrator privileges. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indented, since a desysop'ing is now on the table. May revisit depending on where that goes. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Cirt restricted from BLPs
2.1) Cirt is prohibited from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person, except for reverting obvious vandalism. There is no restriction on Cirt's making edits that incidentally refer to living persons on other articles, so long as the focus of the article is not primarily biographical; but he is discouraged from making any such edits that are likely to be controversial or disputed, and in cases of doubt he should use the talkpage rather than edit the article directly.

Should Cirt's continued editing raise further concerns about his compliance with the BLP policy, the Committee may expand the scope of this restriction by motion to include all editing relating to living persons. Conversely, if Cirt conforms his future editing to applicable policies and the principles set forth in this decision and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs, he may submit a request for amendment after one year from the date of this decision seeking a relaxation of this restriction.


 * Support:
 * I am proposing 2.1 and 2.2 as potential alternatives to 2. Arbitrators supporting both should indicate first and second choice; for me, this is second choice. It would not be unthinkable to pass only 1 and then to monitor Cirt's compliance with BLP going forward, as I would have to imaging this case would have a significant effect on his editing; but on balance I think it is in his interest as well as others that he re-focus his editing away from most biographies. Copyedits to the wording are welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 18:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IFF remedy 3 (desysop) passes. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 09:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per my reasoning in 2; if we're going to this level, we need to desysop first, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As per 2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my reasoning in #2. PhilKnight (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As in #2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Same issue as above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not happy about reverting vandalism. See my comment on R2.2,  Roger Davies  talk 03:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, per Roger. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:


 * Jclemens, you say that as if you're putting the cart before the horse. Do you support an unstated proposition that he retains enough trust to continue being a sysop (and ergo, in your view, enough trust to not be restricted from BLPs), or are you opposing just because nobody has proposed a desysop? Cool Hand Luke 03:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since no one has put forth a motion to desysop, I do not see a remedy implying this severe of a lack of trust at all proportionate. I do not believe an admin should retain the bit if subject to a sanction of this level. If someone wants to tie a desysop to this I might support it, but it strikes me as problematic to be considering a desysop so late in the game when no one else advocated it before--Indeed, I seem to have been the first one to mention it in the PD. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So it's OTHERSANCTIONSDONTEXSIT? This doesn't seem like a reason to oppose a remedy. You're free to propose desysop. If you like, I'll post a desysop remedy just so you're forced to come up with an actual decision on this proposal. You're certainly not the first to mention it in the case. It's extensively discussed on the workshop page, for example.
 * For clarity, I don't think there's any reason to desysop (no administrative misconduct), but I'm frustrated by your refusal to make an actual decision here. Cool Hand Luke 18:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is very clearly a decision here: If he is to retain the bit, it is inappropriate to topic ban him entirely from BLPs. If you want to ask me if I think he should remain a sysop, that's an entirely different matter, I agree.  Would you prefer I supported IFF he is desysop'ed?  That would be the equivalent to opposing because there's no remedy to desysop him.  I am not of the opinion that one must misuse the tools themselves in order to lose them, a position I realize that is not shared by all of the committee.  BLPs are about real people's lives; tools are internal Wikipedia mechanisms that are quickly reversed if misused.  I see nothing inconsistent about my position that BLP access is arguably more trust-dependent than administrator privileges. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If BLP access is more trust-dependent, as I think it is, and as you claim to believe, then someone can logically have insufficient trust to edit BLPs (as demonstrated by misrepresentation of sources, among other things), but still have enough trust to do largely clerical admin work (especially when one has no problems in that area). Are you sure you don't have your opposition backwards?
 * Do I read you correctly that you do believe Cirt should be both desysopped and restricted from BLPs, but refuse to apply this remedy because your favored desysop remedy will not pass? That seems like simple obstructionism to me. Cool Hand Luke 18:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you do not read me correctly: when I want to express my opinion, I do so. I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. Yes, one could construe a situation like you hypothesize, but no, I don't favor that sort of outcome.  And that is pretty much all I think I need to elaborate on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you oppose a remedy on its own merits, I would prefer that you say so, instead of making an excuse about another remedy that hasn't been proposed. Cool Hand Luke 00:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I never support or oppose any remedy purely on its own merits, unless you consider a remedy's proportionality with respect to similar situations part of "its own merits". That is, no remedy exists in a vacuum; I favor being equitable not only between different sorts of remedies for a single editor (the case here) but also between editors determined to have similar levels of misconduct. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This site cannot make decisions because individual editors demand that the perfect be enemy of the good. Because every person disagrees about what "perfect" means, it just contributes to useless obstructionism. Cool Hand Luke 15:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Obstructionism? Really? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Holding voting for now. Please see my comment about reverting vandalism on R2.2 below,  Roger Davies  talk 03:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cirt restricted from "political" biographies
2.2) Cirt is prohibited from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person, except for reverting obvious vandalism, where (1) the notability of the BLP subject relates to politics, religion, or social controversy, or (2) the subject of the edit relates to politics, religion, or social controversy. All these terms are to be construed broadly but reasonably. There is no restriction on Cirt's making edits that incidentally refer to such living persons in other articles, so long as the focus of the article is not primarily biographical; but he is discouraged from making any such edits that are likely to be controversial or disputed, and in cases of doubt he should use the talkpage rather than edit the article directly.

Should Cirt's continued editing raise further concerns about his compliance with the BLP policy, the Committee may expand the scope of this restriction by motion to include all editing relating to living persons. Conversely, if Cirt conforms his future editing to applicable policies and the principles set forth in this decision and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs, he may submit a request for amendment after one year from the date of this decision seeking a relaxation of this restriction.


 * Support:
 * See comment on 2.1. This is first choice for me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 18:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This might be more accurately termed an expansion of remedy 1, rather than a variant on 2. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Cirt and others' identification of the scope of the problems. Although this is going to be more difficult to adjudicate on marginal cases, this is the most accurate proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. SirFozzie (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 09:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cavalry (Message me) 15:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * We should not be forcing administrators to evaluate the reason for article subjects' notability as a prerequisite for enforcing conduct sanctions. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A worthy draft but the reverting vandalism provision (given the evidence of controversial calls by Cirt in this area) is probably asking for trouble. Plus, of course, Kirill raises a very good point. I've offered R2.3 below as an alternative,  Roger Davies  talk 03:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer 2.3. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Just looking at the wording and it seems that there's a conflict between this (where he can revert vandalism) and R1 (where he can't). The obvious route is amend one or other to add/remove reverting vandalism. My feeling is that reverting just encourages an editor to keep an eye on articles, when really it's best to walk away. We should also probably clarify whether R1 can be relaxed in a year too. Any thoughts on this before I vote?  Roger Davies  talk 03:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that he not be allowed to revert vandalism. Cirt should be encouraged away from articles he has an interest in, as you say, in line with WP:DISENGAGE. I have no opinion at present on your comment re:R1. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also evidence - here and here - of controversial reversions of vandalism by Cirt.  Roger Davies  talk 15:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I am not going to make a bigger deal out of this than it is, and will defer to any arbitrator consensus without requiring a formal vote, I would prefer for a copyedit deleting "except for reverting obvious vandalism" not to be made. Although our trust level in Cirt's editing these biographies is impaired and by Cirt's own acknowledgement he should spend his wikitime elsewhere, I do not anticipate any trouble if he occasionally reverts obvious vandalism. Of course, "obvious vandalism" means "obvious vandalism"&mdash;that is, a damaging edit that no serious editor could possibly insist was appropriate. This language used to be used in decisions all the time with few, if any, reported problems and I wouldn't anticipate any problems here. If problems unexpectedly do arise, a simple motion could remove the leeway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cirt restricted from political, religious and social controversy biographies
2.3) Cirt is prohibited from editing articles that are substantially biographies of living people if, broadly but reasonably construed, (i) the articles already refer to politics or religion or social controversy; or (ii) his edits introduce to the articles material about politics or religion or social controversy. However, Cirt is permitted to edit other articles that refer incidentally to such living people providing (i) the focus of the articles is not substantially biographical and (ii) his edits are not biographical in nature.

Should Cirt's continued editing raise further concerns about his compliance with the BLP policy, the Committee may expand the scope of this restriction by motion to include all editing relating to living persons. Conversely, if Cirt conforms his future editing to applicable policies and the principles set forth in this decision and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs, he may submit a request for amendment after one year from the date of this decision seeking a relaxation of this restriction.


 * Support:
 * This is an alternative to 2.2, without the reverting vandalism and the notability provisions. Hopefully, the language is a bit more direct and less susceptible to gaming/misinterpretation. Par. 2 is verbatim from R2.2.  Roger Davies  talk 02:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 03:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice to 2.2, prefer original wording of 2.2 per my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Acceptable demarcation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 06:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cavalry (Message me) 17:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Cirt desysopped
3) For admitted violations of the neutral point of view and biographies of living people policies, in addition to any other sanction or remedy, Cirt is desysopped and may regain the tools via a request for adminship.


 * Support:
 * Reluctantly, see comment below.  Roger Davies  talk 03:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Added "and may regain the tools via a successful request for adminship".  Roger Davies  talk 04:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to have it come to this, but Cirt doesn't have my trust at present, and I'm of the opinion that he's lost the trust of a fair part of the community. Misuse of sysop tools is an obvious reason for a desysop, but I also think it would be inappropriate for an administrator to keep the tools after the events that have transpired. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I almost posted an alternative requiring a reconfirmation RfAdmin, with all parties and those who've interfaced with him barred from commenting or voting, to get a real sense of the community.. but if we'd have to go to THOSE lengths to see if he still has the trust of the community, we might as well remove them ourselves, and he can get it back through RfAdmin if he wants. SirFozzie (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While I didn't propose this initially, (I proposed remedy #2, which will be mooted if this passes), several of the committee are advocating what I perceive to be a more severe restriction, incompatible with the trust expected of admins. Since we're intentionally trying to avoid abstaining, I find myself slightly more comfortable with this passing than failing. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for removing editors from positions of community trust for conduct unbecoming, independent of any actual misuse of the associated technical tools (cf. West Bank - Judea and Samaria). Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per my reasoning in #2. PhilKnight (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - documented misuse of tools not in evidence. Hence not a solution or remedy to an existing problem. Cirt will be watched for editing transgressions, which will be sufficient. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support IFF Jclemens' obstructionist conditional vote is needed to pass 2.1 (if 2.1 fails either way, or passes either way, I oppose). This user's sysop bit has never been an issue, but his misrepresentation of sources in BLPs is a serious problem. Cool Hand Luke 23:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clerk note: Oppose unless one more support allows this remedy to pass, thus allowing 2.1 to pass above other alternatives. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In principle, I have no problem at all with desysopping an administrator who has engaged in serious misconduct warranting such a remedy, whether or not the misconduct involves "use of administrator tools." And on a few moments' thought, I doubt that anyone really disagrees with this: If we had an admin engaging in blatant vandalism across dozens of articles, we would desysop him or her even though the vandalism was committed using nothing more advanced than the "edit" button. (Compare the recent Nabla case, where an administrator had made a handful of non-constructive edits; we admonished rather than desysopped because the misconduct was isolated and there were mitigating factors, not because we couldn't have desysopped if warranted.) That being said, the fact that administrator tools were not overtly misused as part of the problematic behavior is a factor weighing somewhat against desysopping. This is a closer call for me than it should have been, but I come down on the side of giving Cirt a continued opportunity to benefit the project as an administrator. He needs to stay well clear of the problems that have affected his editing in the past, and to remember that he has pretty much run out of chances. (See also enforcement paragraph 2 below, which is passing.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * This is another tough call. While the committee has traditionally desysopped for misuse of administrator tools, we have also on occasion desysopped either permanently or temporarily for serious breaches of core policies (WP:SOCK is the obvious one) on the basis that such violations are incompatible with "high standard of conduct" expected of administrators. I believe that arguably that bar has been met here and that it therefore needs to go to a formal vote.  Roger Davies  talk 03:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this supposed to be yet another alternative to 2, 2.1, and 2.2? I don't think it logically should be. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's free-standing ie "in addition too", but I was reluctant to renumber the whole lot. I've clarified the wording.  Roger Davies  talk 03:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I've renumbered to make it even clearer.  Roger Davies  talk 03:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not know how to interpret Cool Hand Luke's vote; could this please be clarified? Traditionally conditional votes are either "iff this passes" "iff this fails" or similar - I'm not sure what to make of this. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an oppose, unless my support of this remedy would allow 2.2 to pass due to JClemens' conditioned vote. More likely to be an oppose, really. Cool Hand Luke 02:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. To help keep my head on straight, I'm going to move your vote to the oppose section for now and add something to clarify underneath (just in case this discussion section grows more). Thanks for the clarification. I'll update the notes tomorrow, it's too late for me to do them now. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your professionalism, Hersfold. I'm sorry about the contorted vote. Cool Hand Luke 18:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466 reminded
4) Jayen466 is reminded to adhere strictly to dispute resolution processes in any future dispute with any other editor.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution is the work of individuals; I don't think process was the major reason that this turned so rancorous. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose the main issue here, from a Wikipedian point of view, is that if a problem is egregious enough others will pick up the baton. While I note what the opposers say, I do not think the end justifies the means. I am also troubled by the this.  Roger Davies  talk 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IThe Cavalry (Message me) 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Switching to support. There was incidents outside WP's DR process that need to be acknowledged here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Not convinced there was a problem here&mdash;or rather, I'm not convinced that this was the problem. DR channels were used. It would have been better if others stepped up to the plate every once in a while, but how long would this have continued but for Jayen466? I support a topic ban as the drama-minimizing course going forward, but if there was a problem, it was in dispute resolution, not Jayen466. Cool Hand Luke 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my comments on proposed finding 2 and per Cool Hand Luke. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let this vote stand, but please see my added comment on proposed finding 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I find that his behavior was close to the line, but it was still in a grey area, and it probably doesn't need a formal finding. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Cirt and Jayen: interaction restriction
5) Cirt and Jayen466 shall neither communicate with each other nor comment upon each other's actions or edits either directly or indirectly on any page in the English Wikipedia. Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. Neither party may respond directly to perceived violations of this interaction restriction nor seek arbitration enforcement but shall instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * this ongoing dispute has to end. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that this dispute has gone on far too long and needs to come to an end. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cavalry (Message me) 17:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * With the underlying issues that led Cirt and Jayen466 to quarrel largely being resolved by this decision, I'm not convinced this is necessary. Of course the parties should avoid unnecessary interaction with each other, and am confident that they will use best efforts to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let this vote stand, but please see my added comment on proposed finding 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Enforcement by block
1) Should any user subject to a restriction or ban imposed in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the ban or topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support IFF remedy 2 does not pass . Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 20:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cavalry (Message me) 17:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Conditional support because I believe a desysop is more appropriate for an administrator sanctioned and essentially placed on probation than a series of increasing blocks. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your rationale for proposed remedy 2, but I don't see why you wouldn't support this as well even if 2 passes. Although I am hoping that it doesn't arise, a serious infringement of the topic-ban could warrant a block as well as potential suspension or revocation of adminship. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, as Xeno pointed out to me in private email, the interaction ban needs teeth, too. Striking my condition. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Administrator privileges if problems recur
2) Should any administrator subject to a restriction or ban imposed in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be desysopped by simple motion of the arbitration committee.


 * Support:
 * Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ... unless remedy 3 (desysop) and enforcement 2 are considered alternatives to each other. If that is the case and if remedy 3 is passing, consider this vote a procedural oppose in favor of desysop. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "may" makes this a reasonable proposal. Of course, depending on the nature of the restrictions that ultimately pass, one can imagine minor or technical infringements of the restriction that might not warrant action and more substantial infringements that might. I will add that I do not wish to see wikilawyering, from any side or in either direction, about the interpretation of whatever topic-bans or restrictions are imposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this is appropriately worded (this remedy seems aimed specifically but generally worded), but support the idea that it would be an appropriate sanction if issues continued. SirFozzie (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 20:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 02:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrators are meant to be trusted members of the community. The tools, in my opinion, can be taken away if an administrator behaves in such a way that shows they can't be trusted. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * While there's room for leeway, I'm still not convinced removing administrator bits without evidence of misuse of said bits makes sense as a sanction. Blocks, bans, etc. are more to-the-point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * in the absence of tool misuse. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * We do need to explain why Cirt isn't being desysop'ed here, and without speaking for all the other arbs, it is my impression that Cirt has done good administrator work and hasn't misused any tools in the furtherance of his admitted misdeeds. At the same time, I think it proper to inform Cirt and the community that desysoping was discussed as part of the remedy to this case, and it will be a hard sell for us to not desysop Cirt should he prove unable to comply with restrictions commensurate with his admitted behavior. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''

These notes were last updated by 01:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on by User:.


 * Notes

Roll Call
The following arbitrators have not cast votes for all proposals:
 * Cool Hand Luke: P3.1, E1, E2
 * Jclemens: R2

Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

''Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.''


 * Support
 * I'm done. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indenting to give others time to comment on NYB's proposals. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like another day or two is going to make a difference. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Moving to oppose to get Remedy 3 decided one way or the other. Now that Remedy 3 has resolved itself, All set. SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the substantive voting is now done,  Roger Davies  talk 02:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cavalry (Message me) 23:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Sorry, guys. Can we hold this up til votings done on R2.1, R2.2 and R2.3 please?  Roger Davies  talk 03:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Moved to Support,   Roger Davies  talk 02:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pending a resolution of the vote on remedy #3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pending vote on Remedy #3 SirFozzie (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Looks like Remedy 3 has been resolved, and we're all set again. SirFozzie (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Net four has been reached, and provided there are no further changes, the case will close at or around 18:57 4 September. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Voting has fallen below net four, and the timer will restart when it reaches it again. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything looks ready to close except we still need to finish voting on the proposed desysopping of Cirt (remedy 3). I'll support closing as soon as we have an up-or-down decision on that item. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd really appreciate getting some input from Elen - can she be given a very hefty poke, or asked to go inactive on this case? Her lack of voting is affecting the majority. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, hadn't realised I wasn't marked as recused on this one. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In other news, Remedy 3 fails unless both Elen and MD vote in support. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I read it as passing, Elen's recusal makes the threshold for passing is 6 (11 active arbs), and it's passing (admittedly razor thin 6-5) SirFozzie (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Net four has been reached, and the case will close at or around 02:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC). Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fallen back under. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The yo-yo has come back up again, and the case is due to close at 20:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC). Or whenever I get home from work. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 01:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)