Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda/Proposed decision

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the, you should [&section=new post] to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

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:

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:

=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.


 * Support:
 * Many of the proposed principles are familiar ones. At the outset of the proposed decision, I'd like to thank my colleague Jclemens for his work on co-drafting in this case; anything novel that is adjudged rotten, however, is mine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 11:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is novel. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Conduct and decorum
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 11:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Neutral point of view
3) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 11:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Editorial process
4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 11:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Consensus
5) As reflected in the policy page Consensus, determining when consensus has been reached is not always an exact science. Editors should endeavor in good faith to work toward consensus when content disputes arise. Editors are not, in striving for consensus, required to abandon their beliefs about historical or other facts, or to simulate agreement with article content with which they continue to disagree; advocating forcefully, but civilly, for one's view is part of the process that has built some of our strongest articles. However, there comes a point when the existence of consensus becomes clear, so that disagreeing editors must accept that consensus is against them and cease editing against it, at least for a reasonable period of time.


 * Support:
 * This formulation is novel, though its essence is drawn from the relevant policy pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good exposition of "I didn't hear that" too,  Roger  talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 11:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * like --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Novel, but should become a new standard, I think. SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee
6) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. However, an editor's continuing to edit or threaten to edit against a clear consensus&mdash;after appropriate discussion, warnings, and the use of applicable dispute resolution methods&mdash;may cross the line into disruptive editing that constitutes a conduct (rather than exclusively content) issue and may be grounds for sanctions.


 * Support:
 * The first sentence is familiar. The second is a new wording as far as I recall, but it is inherent in many of our decisions, and I think it is helpful to spell it out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 11:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there comes a time where continuing to act against an ongoing content consensus becomes a conduct, not content issues. SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Arbitration sanctions
7) The scope of sanctions imposed as remedies in arbitration cases, such as topic-bans, should be clearly defined so as to avoid later misunderstandings and disagreements. A sanction remedy should also clearly specify the duration of the sanction and the procedure, if any, available to the sanctioned user to seek lifting or modification of the sanction in due course.


 * Support:
 * I believe we have always attempted to do this, but in view of concerns expressed in some other cases that our decisions and motions are sometimes imprecise (this includes some drafted by me), it is well to reaffirm our aspiration to be clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 11:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, but find it somewhat out of place. (Have there been unclearly defined sanctions in regards to this case?) – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case no, but it's a concern that's been expressed in response to other decisions, which I took into account in writing this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - though we should consider codifying it somewhere rather than repeating it every single time we impose sanctions. – xeno talk  13:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this should not be boilerplate for every case that includes a sanction. (No decision includes every past principle that could be relevant, or this proposed principles section would be at least ten paragraphs longer.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems uncontentious but mildly irrelevant. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain that this is particularly relevant, but it's not controversial. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Don't see how this is applicable to this case, but might be sensible for the currently open AE case. Shell  babelfish 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Shell; this is something we should aspire to, but it doesn't seem relevant here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Template
8) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of the dispute is editing relating to the Coandă-1910 aircraft, and in particular, the claim that this aircraft embodied the first jet engine.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or is it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 23:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Lsorin
2) has engaged in disruptive editing in connection with Coandă-1910, including edit-warring, advocacy in support of a particular historical point of view, editing against a clear consensus, proposing to delete an article to which he had contributed after failing to prevail in a content dispute, incivility, and personal attacks. See evidence containing links to examples; further evidence with examples.
 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Like the way the links are set out also --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 23:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Beyond a reasonable doubt. SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Lsorin's response
3) Lsorin's evidence in this arbitration case and the contents of his userpage reflect that while Lsorin appears to be acting in good faith and to have done substantial research on the Coandă-1910, he still does not appreciate the serious concerns that have been expressed about his editing.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 11:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 23:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that the primary problem is their inability to see what the problem is &mdash; or even that there is a problem &mdash; is the central cause. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There comes a time when one has to realize that they are being disruptive. That time has well since passed in this case. SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Lsorin topic-banned
1) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about the Coandă-1910 aircraft, its inventor Henri Coandă, or the history of the jet engine. This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Lsorin may request that it be terminated or modified after at least six months have elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Lsorin has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.


 * Support:
 * Specific wording of the topic-ban and appeal right taken from the World War II case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 12:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No choice here I think --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate, but appropriate at this juncture. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 23:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Scope of topic ban
2) The topic-ban imposed in this decision applies to all pages in all namespaces. However, the topic-ban does not preclude Lsorin from (1) responding to good-faith, reasonable inquiries from other editors on his user talkpage seeking information about the Coandă-1910, as long as Lsorin does not misuse this permission; (2) participating in the arbitration enforcement discussion of any allegation that he violated the topic-ban; or (3) posting an authorized request for the lifting or modification of the topic-ban after the specified time period has elapsed.


 * Support:
 * There have been a number of recent disagreements concerning the intended scope of topic-bans, which have become a significant time-sink and led to friction on AE. We may wish to use this case to develop agreed language that could become the form of a "standard topic ban" that could be cited in future cases. If this idea has appeal, arbitrators should feel free to propose alternative (narrower or broader) formulations. (For example, I am not sure whether topic-banned editors should be given some leeway to make purely incidental reference to the restricted topic in discussions on policy pages, or whether to include some language calling for common-sense leeway in enforcement in such cases.) Of course, no matter what language we might decide upon as standard, the committee will always have full discretion to tailor the scope of any ban or restriction as appropriate to the evidence and findings in any individual case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good start for formulating clearer standard topic ban terms,  Roger  talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 12:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We should perhaps refine what we mean by "as long as Lsorin does not misuse this permission" (with respect to discussion at User talk:Lsorin), but this is a minor point. – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but as I did so, the trade-off between crystal clarity and instruction creep came starkly into view. We can refine this later if we create a standard set of instructions for topic bans (which may have more than one type of them, as I think about it). Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 23:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that any specific case is the right place to tweak what may be intended to become standard wording (as opposed to a discussion not related to a specific ban). That said, this wording is appropriate for this case even though I wouldn't like to see it become "standard" without some serious study.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm open to the idea of formulating standard procedures to cover the details of topic bans, etc., and then including them in individual cases by reference. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Enforcement by block
1) Should Lsorin violate the topic-ban or restriction imposed in this decision, he may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for a period of up to one week. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger talk 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 12:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  13:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shell  babelfish 23:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.''


 * Proposals which pass
 * Passing principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 * Passing findings: 1, 2, 3
 * Passing remedies: 1, 2
 * Passing enforcement provisions: 1
 * Proposals which do not pass
 * Failing principles: None
 * Failing findings: None
 * Failing remedies: None
 * Failing enforcement provisions: None
 * Last updated: NW ( Talk ) 00:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 20:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * no point hanging around Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk  21:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Close afternoon or evening Tuesday, allowing a little more time for anyone else who wishes to vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comment