Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/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.

For this case, there are 11 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the arbitrators for voting. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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=

Enforcement of Probation
1) Probation may be enforced by any administrator, including an involved administrator, unless specifically prohibited. An involved administrator is familiar with the situation. Involved administrators should take care that the enforcement is being done in the interests of preventing disruption, not in the interest of getting an advantage in a content dispute.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Administrators are supposed to have judgment and are supposed to exercise self-restraint in borderline cases. The problem is probation itself, which inherently creates a group of second-class citizens.  If we're going to utilize probation, then we should trust administrators to enforce it.


 * Oppose:
 * Paul August &#9742; 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC) It isn't a good idea to have Involved admins enforcing probations.
 * In theory, it should be OK, but in practice, it causes way too much unnecessary tension. It's not exactly difficult for an involved administrator to get an uninvolved admin to help out. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea to have parties enforcing sanctions against each other. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Abstaining while I think about better wording. We need to address this. Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

... with warning for involved sysops
1.1) Probation may be enforced by any administrator unless specifically restricted. Involved administrators should be aware that their enforcement actions, although taken in good faith, may be misconstrued as retaliation against an editor with whom they are in a content or other dispute, or may be subconsciously influenced by their view of the merits of the dispute.


 * Support:
 * Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not encourage involved admins to enforce probation, but in reality they are often the ones that know of the the ArbCom rulings and see the violations. If the admin is in good standing, we should trust their judgment or put restrictions on the enforcement if we see a specific problem brewing. FloNight 20:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Second choice. Rationale per principle #1.
 * I still think this is a bit mild. James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * As in principle 1. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Better, but I see no need for involved admins enforcing probation, nor do I see where this is grounded in existing policy or practice, quite the opposite in fact.
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Breaks more than it fixes. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

... with ban for involved sysops
1.2) Probation may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator; involved administrators should not enforce probation remedies unless given specific leave to do so. Involved administrators should be aware that their actions, although taken in good faith, may be misconstrued as retaliation against an editor with whom they are in a content or other dispute, or may be subconsciously influenced by their view of the merits of the dispute.


 * Support:
 * This question is central to the dispute and we can't leave it in the air. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a large group of administrators, and when in doubt it is best to contact someone uninvolved. SimonP 15:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Think this goes too far the other way. My main issue is with the term "involved administrator". Tis common for a problem editor to misguidedly initiate an ArbCom case against an administrator that properly enforces policy. The RFArb case is accepted to examine the problem editor and not the administrator. This administrator is clearly "involved" but in my opinion should be allowed to enforce sanctions against the problem editor. Otherwise, we sent the wrong message to the problem editor and the helpful administrator. This situation is clearly different than the situation here where Zero and Zeq have edit warred about content in several articles. Zero should not have applied sanctions since he was actively in a content dispute about this topic. FloNight 15:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Too far the other way, yes. James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 00:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

One hat at a time, and no pulling rank
1.3) Administrators must relinquish their administrative roles when involved in editorial or personal disputes with good-faith editors. If administrative duties such as probation enforcement are called for, "involved" administrators are expected to seek assistance from uninvolved administrators.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. It's really that simple; there's nothing special about probation -- it's the same as 3RR violations. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a tad baffled by the vehemence of the opposition. How the heck hard it is to get the attention of another admin to press a "block" button or leave a needed message? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 15:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 02:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I oppose this policy. "Involved" administrators are in touch with the situation. Fred Bauder 01:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is unworkable; the point at which "administrative disputes" become "personal" or "editorial" is, at best, murky (we pass restrictions on behaviour but also in the end on editorial actions all the time - when a sysop picks up on potential infractions of these, at what point in a continuing discussion does it stop being administrative?). But I agree that, if at all possible, sysops should seek to place themselves and their office beyond reproach. James F. (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A variant on the concept that admins can have 'conflict of interest'. Well, perhaps they do on occasion, but we tell them (rightly) "deal with it". Charles Matthews 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose this new policy. The end point of this policy would be that any individual administrator could only act once in any particular matter because they would subsequently be tainted by their "involvement."  Administrators are supposed to have the trust of the community and are expected to act in such a way as to maintain it.  While an ongoing pattern of use of administrative capabilities in the furtherance of editorial or personal agendas would indeed be problematic, making a bright-line policy against individual incidents would be a gift to the trolls. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral:

Neutral point of view
2) Neutral point of view requires articles represent fairly all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Administrators
3) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses of judgment are tolerated, but consistently poor judgment may result in de-sysopping.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Interpretation of Arbitration Committee decisions
4) An administrator or other editor who takes an action in reliance on a good-faith, reasonable interpretation of an Arbitration Committee decision should not be subject to sanction for that action.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 21:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (but why "generally"? It's always the case that a good-faith, reasonable action should not be subject to sanction.)
 * Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support striking of "generally". James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Advocacy and propaganda
5) What Wikipedia is not, an official policy, precludes use of Wikipedia for advocacy or propaganda. The editing of editors who consistently use wikipedia for advocacy or propaganda may be restricted.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 21:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
6) Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point warns against campaigns intended to prove a point.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Paul August &#9742; 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC) I don't see how this priciple applies in this case.
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Unrelated to the matter at hand.
 * Unnecessary for this case. James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Controversial conclusory statements in introductions
7) There is a long-standing, and hard-fought, consensus among Wikipedia editors that controversial conclusory statements are best avoided in the introductions of articles. For example, the introduction to Joseph Stalin probably does not describe him as a "dictator" or "mass murderer", nor does the introduction to Soviet Union describe it as a "totalitarian dictatorship". It is thought better to set forth the facts in the body of the article which might support such conclusions.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Um, Joseph Stalin does exactly that. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Content decision, and an incorrect one to boot. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 19:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Content decision. Correctitude of such statements is explicity outwith the competence of the Committee. James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template
8) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Terms of previous remedy
1) The terms of Zeq's previous article ban was:
 * Zeq banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation
 * 1) Zeq is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus, and is placed on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans and the reasons for them to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Zeq.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC) I've reformatted to make this more clear that we are quoting from a previous case, and added link.
 * Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight 15:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit warring by Zeq
2) Zeq has engaged in edit warring, , , and , , , His edits, often to hotly contested, introductory material, are characterized by aggressive biased editing, inadequate command of English, and misunderstanding of appropriate use of sources, see. See also Zeq's user page where he sets forth his program.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * A certain level of editorial conflict is to be expected on controversial topics; I see no evidence that Zeq has been unusually egregious in that regard here, or that his edits in this particular conflict have been flagrantly unacceptable. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Zeq has disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point
3) As shown at User:Zeq:

"You see if someone wants to hide the fact that Quisling collaborated with the Nazis, in Wikipedia he can do that. You get it? Quisling the guy his name is synonymous with being a collaborator - In Wikipedia you can hide his past, burry the word Nazi out of Quisling biography? People have done that here: )"

"Really. So that they can use this as an example to remove the word Nazi from the biography of other collaborators such as Amin al-Husayni and he also used it as 'evidence against Zeq' here: so that 'ArbCom' can ban me."

It can be seen that Zeq has a point to prove respecting conclusory statements. This has resulted in disruption as he had repeatedly inserted and edit warred over such material in the introductions to articles.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * WP:POINT doesn't apply if he actually supports the edits he's making. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 19:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC) per Kirill.
 * Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These edits are contrary to good practice, but not WP:POINT violations as Kirill highlights. James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Rudeness by Zero0000
4) Zero0000 has been quite rude and dismissive of Zeq's and other editors' efforts. This comment, while dated, is utterly unacceptable. This comment: "Sigh. Do I really have to give Zeq an assumption of good faith despite evidence to the contrary over several years, over multiple bans and blocks, endless attempts by multiple editors to try to reason with him, plead with him, beg him to please oh please behave correctly? Well, no I don't. WP:AGF states: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." (bold in source). What can I say?" betrays a clear misunderstanding of our responsibilities to editors who are obviously having trouble editing adequately. Examples involving other editors include:, ,.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I've removed the unnecessary mention and characterization of another editor.
 * Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight 15:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But the more recent stuff is insufficiently poor behaviour to warrant a mention FWICT. James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC) If it is necessary to go back over a year in editing history to find sufficiently damning material against an editor involved in inherently contentious topic areas, there isn't a case. I believe that the other cited diffs are fair criticism.


 * Abstain:

Enforcement of Probation by Zero0000
5) On April 11, 2007, acting under Requests for arbitration/Zeq, banned Zeq from 1929 Hebron massacre. Zeq did not respect the ban , and Zero0000 later imposed a 48 hour block. This was within the literal meaning of the terms of Zeq's probation, but controversial as Zero0000 had a history of conflict with Zeq and could be considered an involved administrator who should have requested assistance rather than banning or blocking Zeq himself.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight 15:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Again, I believe that the flaw is inherent in our use of probation.


 * Abstain:

Template
6) {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.

Zero0000 admin actions against Zeq
1) In light of the prior history between these two editors, and without any finding of wrongdoing, Zero0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 04:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, this will help decrease the heat between these users and the articles that they edit. FloNight 15:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Zero0000 admonished
2) Zero0000 is admonished that so long as an editor is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas. This includes users who are on probation.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 19:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FloNight 15:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But I agree with UnC, of course. James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC) The only problem I have with this is the requirement to "accord good faith". We do not expect editors to assume good faith once a pattern of problematic editing is evident.


 * Abstain:

Zeq banned
3) Zeq is indefinitely banned from editing articles or the talk pages of articles which relate to the Israeli-Arab or Israeli-Palestinian dispute. This specifically includes articles which relate to the modern history of Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * No evidence that this is necessary; he seems to have kept in line with his existing probation since last August. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Enforcement by block
1) Should Zeq edit articles or the talk pages of articles which relate to the Israeli-Arab or Israeli-Palestinian dispute he may be banned for an appropriate period. All blocks to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000.


 * Support:


 * Oppose:
 * Not needed without R3. James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

General
I know Zeq will be outraged, but, frankly, he has worn out the patience of the community. The result would not be different if he took an opposing viewpoint. Fred Bauder 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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.''


 * Principles 2/3/4/5 pass
 * Findings of fact 1/4/5 pass
 * Remedies 1 and 2 pass (updated 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)) - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps

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.


 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I believe we're done here.
 * Close. Kirill Lokshin 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Close. Charles Matthews 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Piss poor, but close Fred Bauder 00:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)