Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Proposed decision

I just want to mention that Guanaco reversed my block of JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but it was after I asked him to consider unblocking JarlaxleArtemis on IRC. So make sure it gets left out of any decision making. :) --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 02:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The proposed injunction is absurd. Not only is it irrelevant to the userbox deletion dispute, but it is unfair and overly restrictive. After I unblock users, I always post to WP:AN/I and any appropriate user talk pages except when removing autoblocks. I do not wheel war over blocks. —Guanaco 04:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have not withdrawn my demand that Dmcdevit recuse himself. He is clearly prejudiced in this matter, as shown by his comments when this issue was on AN/I. —Guanaco 04:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Guan this proposal is absurd, especially since it hasn't been applied to MarkSweep (in this RfAr) and Tony. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Have either of those two been in the news lately for wheel warring? Johnleemk | Talk 17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm uncertain -- I'm having trouble reading the logs. Tony seems to be still refactoring his own RfAr, but I don't recall any questionable administrative actions he's taken recently. MarkSweep is still doing a few actions which seem similar to those which got him here, but doesn't seem to have reversed any administrative actions. He may be still doing deletions out-of-process, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure if this is the place for this... please see here regarding proposed finding of fact #6. Mike McGregor (Can) 10:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Please add the diffs to the Evidence page; this is part of the evidence I was going to file. Septentrionalis 19:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

done.Mike McGregor (Can) 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

re:principle # 7, could I suggest that the terms "divisive" and "Inflamitory" are subjective at best and leave alot (perhaps too much) room for interpration?64.231.85.6 11:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (the above comment was made by me while i was signed out...Mike McGregor (Can) 14:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

That principle is merely a restatement of policy. If you don't like it, WP:CSD is the place. It does leave room for interpretation, but that kind of judgment is what we all take into consideration when deciding who gets adminship. And how it is interpretted is still being determined in practice, but it is not really more subjective then others (for instance, "attack pages" or "unremarkable people"), just less established. Dmcdevit·t 23:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Elements of the proposed decision never placed on workshop

This prevents any defense against them, which is clearly wrong. They should at least appear first on the Workshop page. StrangerInParadise 07:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the workshop page is not to mount a defense, but to comment and help the arbitrators synthesize the best decision. In any case, if you'd like to discuss anything listed here, simply put it on the workshop and discus it. Dmcdevit·t 07:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the workshop page is to allow all to comment directly on the discussion- the most fundamental of which is to allow those accused to respond- and thus help the arbitrators synthesize the best decision. By going directly to the proposed decision, you have bypassed that in the most irregular manner, without any clear purpose. You or the clerk (not I) should add the matter to the Workshop page. StrangerInParadise 11:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the citations which accompany the proposed finding of Stranger has been uncivil. In all but two cases, it refers to that I have said, in various fora including this one, that to mass-blank and delete out-of-process is an act of vandalism and disruption. I have also characterized the, um, interference with UN Wikipedians as the act of a rogue admin, which is true. Finally, I have characterized the deletion of my personal files (none related to the UN/UPP action) as thuggish. To describe this as referring to other users with whom he is in a dispute as vandals or as performing vandalism is highly misleading, as I have been civil in the vast majority of circumstances in the face of great incivility directed at me. Further, this effectively grants any admin a right of lese majesté, it is tantamount to a bar on criticising admins. StrangerInParadise 11:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing iregular about my procedure in this case; perhaps you should review other cases I've performed the same way if you are unsure. The workshop page is for everyone to edit, not only clerks and arbitrators. You are welcome to make whatever discussion is necessary there. Also, I have criticized plenty of administrators before, but I have never referred to any of them as vandals or thugs. If prohibiting you from making such attacks will curtail your ability to criticize administrators, then there's your problem right there. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you fail to grasp the essence of what an attack is: I never called a person a vandal or a thug, though I did describe certain actions as vandalism and thuggish, clearly defining why. Considering that you are an arbiter failing to make this distinction, how likely is it that every admin I encounter will respect any distinction between uncivil attack and simple criticism? You are placing admins above criticism, certainly above any criticism I might make. Someone says that, on evidence, an admin has committed vandalism, another walks over immediately and forcibly puts a gag on him: only in the Wikipedia of recent times would the former be considered the more uncivil act.

Similarly, If StrangerInParadise is disruptive with regard to userboxes, or related talk, category, template, or project pages, they may be banned from all userbox-related pages for a period of up to a year. What constitutes disruption? MarkSweep deleted these things out-of-process, I did no more than ask him to stop, then ask admins to stop him. According to more than a few admins, my even creating Template:User pro-cannabis was a divisive act of disruption, according to others resisting its deletion was disruptive. Such is the climate of these deliberations. Rather than preventing clear policy violations, many of these sanctions by their very ambiguity seem targeted only to prevent dissent and participation.

If this is your standard of civility, why have you shown no interest in sanctioning those who have called me various highly-abusive names explicitly assuming bad faith? If you are, I'll happily provide you with a list. How is it that you are willing not only to assume good faith with MarkSweep's actions- in the face of all evidence to the contrary- but enforce this assumption on others with draconian provisions (or is refering to this proposed sanction as draconian an uncivil attack on you then as well)?

Finally, the fact that you have bypassed the workshop page in the past does not make it any less irregular, and you have yet to explain why you would ever do so in the first place, other than to deliberately bypass community discussion.

StrangerInParadise 22:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am able to assume good faith on the part of all parties involved. That doesn't preclude me from identifying even good faith misconduct and ruling on it. I saw such with regard to MarkSweep and proposed his desysopping. That's a Big Deal. I see uncivility on your part, and propose a solution. There is a very distinct line between criticizing someone's actions and calling him or her a vandal. The former is good, the latter is uncivil. That you fail to see the distinction reinforces my confidence in the proposal. Disruption is indeed a vague term, but it is intentionally so, since there are many divere and unpredictable actions it may encompass. Administrators are given discretion to determine it, and that is indeed why we have a community process to determine the admins we trust to do so. The clause that requires three administrators to agree makes this even more cemented. Dmcdevit·t 00:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The term vandal is technical, and requires the elements of destruction and bad faith, nothing more. Out-of-process mass-blanking, mass-deletion, subterfuge in the face of repeated notification more than meet this standard, I have alleged that the evidence of prima facie bad faith dictates such a finding, both in the alerts I have raised and in this ArbCom matter. Are you suggesting I should do otherwise because you think it would be uncivil? Consider your response carefully, then ask whether you are really willing to sanction every user who supports this finding of fact? How about every user whose first posted comment is, Hey, this is vandalism, unaware as they would be as to your sensitivity on this point? The intent of WP:CIVIL was never intended to be such a restraint of speech.

While we are on the subject, how is it that you have allowed so many- including yourself- to assume bad faith in assigning me the most uncivil motive of vote-stacking, when there is ample evidence to the contrary? Specifically, that,

• this was never my intent
• there is no such policy posted
• if there was such a policy, I was unaware of it
• UPP had every apperance of being a Wikipedia-wide poll in which all were encouraged to participate
• if governed by WP:STRAW, the result is not a matter of numbers, nor a means to impose the tyranny of a majority
• if not so governed, then there is no policy prohibiting it
• WP:UPP made no mention of WP:STRAW, and I was unaware of even its existence, though having seen IRC communications, previous votes (over four years here on article talk pages), the apparent biases in the the WP:UPP announcements (especially WP:Userboxes), I had no reason to think there would be a problem with sending a partisan message to an affected group
• the statement, "Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rogue admin" is factually correct in its entirety, as was the charge of sabotage and damage: MarkSweep willfully and knowingly out-of-process damaged a list of Wikipedians by sabotaging templates so as to empty and delete them, i.e. he went rogue
• this is not technically disruption: the existence of a significant minority opposed to UPP is indisputable regardless of my actions, which was to be demonstrated by holding the poll in the first place
• my conversations with the first person who responded at the time (apart from the thank you notes of the message recipients), can confirm at least that I had no awareness that I was violating policy (it should also be apparent to the committee that I had no idea who she was). At no time did she appear to be doing other than questioning my actions. I was in no haste to continue (talking to a interested person became more important than leafleting) and entered into discussion when I was blocked by David Gerard
• I am on record as saying that, had I known of the existence of WP:STRAW#Voting etiquette, I would have posted the invitation to vote, inidicated that UPP would mandate the removal of the category, but not made a voting recommendation
• I have sought dialog on the matter at all relevant phases during and subsequent to the act, being very careful to consult with others (including yourself) lest I violate this unwritten policy a second time
• Were it my intention to wrongfully stack the vote, rather than pick a good neutral sample of affected Wikipedians, I could have chosen a far more polarised group than Category:United Nations Wikipedians, could have programatically left a randomized note on every last affected user over randomized intervals, and could have done so without the benefit of any username
• I have exhaustively documented my actions, pending more questions

I suppose I shall have to expand this onto an evidence section, but this will get you started. Your haste to accuse and sanction me would seem to an uninvolved observer to imply that the requirements of civility and assumption of good faith only apply to what I say, but not to consideration of what I have done. I am aware, though, that you can change your vote, and fear only a precipitous close vote.

As I am now in need of a defense, how would I alert those who would defend me? I had thought to contact about ten, none of whom would know to come to my defense because I was never made a party to the case. Even those on the workshop page wouldn't know.

Somehow, I have edited here on Wikipedia for over four years without drawing a block, a charge of disruption, or indeed much administrative attention of any kind. This only began when I involved myself in the userbox question, which I consider— as do many of you— to be of central importance to the future of Wikipedia. This involvement began when MarkSweep deleted my work out from under me, and I resisted. Now I find myself the subject of casual abuse from administrators, whom I have long patiently answered with ideas. You can imagine how unenviable must be the notion of such a formal sanction as proposed, which would only be an invitation to further abuse.

StrangerInParadise 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You say you have been with the project for four years, I believe, but you clearly cannot have been involved here at the sharp end to any great degree in the past couple of years. Not your fault, but it does mean that you have misconstrued the nature and role in arbitration of workshop pages. They're actually quite new inventions, having made their first appearance in the summer of last year. Before then, it was rare for non-arbitrators to have a direct input into the clerical work of case-making except on the evidence pages, where editors may normally only work on their own sections.

So when an arbitrator placed a proposed principle, remedy or finding of fact on their page, it seldom comes directly from the workshop page, and if non-arbitrators are already doing lots of their own discussion and test-proposals on the workshop, sometimes it may be better to let them get on with it rather than plonking down some proposals. It's far from irregular for arbitrators to completely bypass the workshop (though they may still find the comments there useful). For instance in the July/August case Alfrem, nobody, whether arbitrator or not, used the workshop. The workshop exists mainly for the convenience of the arbitration committee. They are not required to use it, or to put proposals forward for general discussion. The best way to rebut charges made is by presenting evidence to refute them. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the background. I have long noticed the implicit shudder in other long-standing Wikipedians comments regarding what you call the sharp end, and now understand why it- like the Inquisition- is to be avoided even by the faithful. Nevertheless Guanaco, a good man, deserved defending, and so I came. I now find myself in the dock- kind of- and yet not. It is all highly irregular, arbiters suddenly metting out strange punishments to whoever happens to have ever annoyed them. Someone in my position might think it is better to avoid these things altogether, but Guanaco has been so singularly exemplary and MarkSweep so singularly imfamous that silence was not an option. I shall have to avail myself of the evidence and workshop pages, but leave you with my yet unanswered question: for what possible reason would one ever bypass an active workshop page, except in order to bypass discussion? StrangerInParadise 03:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either has been exemplary, but there may be mitigating factors on both sides, and those factors should be place on the evidence page. Your own involvement in the case, although you try to play it down, is what has involved you in the resulting arbitration. There is some feeling in the Arbitration Committee--neither of us yet knows how strong--that there is a problem with your behavior. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have detailed exhaustively my involvement in this case, and I have stated my willingness to answer for any other actions should the matter be brought, so it is not fair to say that I have played down my involvement. By shoehorning into this unrelated matter a sanction against me for, say, my involvement with UPP is simply bad process: the issues are complex enough that they merit a separate case (in which my detractors might reasonably wish to rely on the results of the present case), and it is fair neither to these respondents (who have to defend themselves and invite defenders) nor the other arbiters (who have a great deal to read in this matter) to compel on short notice the inclusion of those arguments I, my defenders, and my detractors would logically need to make.

As for Dmcdevit's stubborn notion that my stubborn insistence in referring to userbox burning as a form of vandalism is somehow actionably uncivil, that is arguably germane to this case (however tangentially, in a sort of a contempt-of-court sense, as I made the remarks in connection with it), but should not bypass an active workshop page.

StrangerInParadise 00:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration is not a community process. As such, apart from presenting evidence, the community has no particular role in it or say over it. The Committee has a more-or-less unrestricted hand to do as they please. As Tony Sidaway points out above, the workshop pages are a comparatively new invention and more of a convenience than anything. Thus, the alleged bypassing of the workshop pages is immaterial. It is reasonably to conclude that, having read them, the Arbitrator concluded these were the appropriate decisions. He was not bound in any way by what appears on the workshop. -Splash^talk 00:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the Committee has a more-or-less unrestricted hand to do as they please. I knew that a year ago. I even think this is a good thing. It is not an allegation, however: he bypassed the workshop page, whether he is entitled to do so is immaterial. What would he have read, since the specific points were not discussed (and he has already voted, BTW). Where would even the arbiters have deliberated?

Perhaps you will answer the question: for what possible reason would an arbiter ever bypass an active workshop page, except in order to bypass discussion? Is this ever a good thing?

StrangerInParadise 01:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that the instructions on the /Proposed decision state, After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here. All of the proposals concerning me were placed on /Proposed in advance of either of these things, which would suggest that they are not ready for voting. That votes are solicited in advance of evidence (such as a defense) is a particularly good reason to consider the practice out-of-process.

StrangerInParadise 04:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Other accounts

StrangerInParadise has indicated that he has at least one other account, a very welll established one. One proposed remedy presently, a personal attack parole, "shall apply to all accounts." I guess the Committee needs to vote on the findings of fact and that remedy first, but if they support it, presumably there will either be a further finding of fact to reveal any other known account identities, or preferably a further remedy to require him to reveal, in a designated place, the names of all accounts he uses.

Or maybe it would be simpler just to get him to decide (and disclose) which account he wants to use, and stick to that account.

If the Committee doesn't decide he has done something wrong, on the other hand, he has a right to privacy. --Tony Sidaway 10:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the considered statement. I would only emphasize that, while I do not have a right to participate in Wikipedia, I do have a right to privacy regardless of what the committee decides. StrangerInParadise 10:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Friday unblocks without discussion

While this is true, as written, I don't feel that it tells the whole story. Upon arriving at the talk page of the admin who performed the block I undid, I saw that other people had already left messages objecting to the block. The issue was also already under discussion at AN/I. It is true that I unblocked before saying "I don't agree with the block", but, I was aware of, and participating in, community discussion. The admin in question has said that he does not object to the unblocking. So, while this finding is factually true, it sounds to me like it's trying to imply that I was disregarding community feelings on this matter, which I do not think is true. I strongly support the application of 1RR and WP:BRD to mattes of editing as well as matters involving admin functions. My original statement in this matter also explains where I stand here.

I hope that the committee will view my involvement in this matter as revolving around the question of whether or not it's automatically wrong to reverse an admin function. I, and some other admins, feel that reversing an admin action once is sometimes OK if you strongly disagree. If the arbitrators do not agree that this OK, I urge them to let me (and everyone else) know. Friday (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The question is not whether it's automatically wrong to reverse an admin, but whether it shows good judgment to do so in a controversial conflict without either giving prior notification and soliciting response or even talking to the blocking administrator first. "Upon arriving at the talk page of the admin who performed the block I undid, I saw that other people had already left messages objecting to the block." That is unlikely to be reflective of consensus, given that you unblocked forty minutes after the block. Here's the diff from when you announced the unblock: [1]. Notice there was one person (SIP) who requests an unblock, and another who says not to rush. NSLE also objected on Evilphoenix's talk page, for a grand total of two. That's it. With another not objecting, and one who performed the block. Given this, your response in that diff reads to me like "let's discuss after I unblock" which is improper. This is why I have included it as a finding. Dmcdevit·t 02:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

HappyCamper ("What's the rush?") concurred with the reversal after the fact ("Well, I didn't have the context comment really. If that's what its best, then let it be"). Generally, can you show that this was an atypically low level of support for a block reversal, especially in the face of an immediate absence of the blocking admin (which should never happen)? If an admin blocks and leaves, this means he is leaving it to others to consider having made his views known, not that he has thrown away the key (which he is not, in any event, entitled to do).

This admin sought consensus, and released an admin who responsibly participated in discussion. This admin is a 1RR-advocate. The reversed admin (EvilPhoenix) lauded and affirmed her colaboration (this must be read). What else could you want? Why is Friday being taken to task here?

StrangerInParadise 12:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Friday, I think the wording of the summary is a bit harsh to her. There were several comments from other people on my Talk page, and seeing no response from me, I don't think she felt it was incredibly important to wait further for me to respond before unblocking. As I've said before, I have no problem with the unblocking, I don't consider the unblocking to be a wheel war, and I don't think its fair to her to seem so chastising to her. Stranger makes a good point, that by not staying around after enacting a block, I'm essentially leaving it for others to interpret, having made my views known. As it happens I had gone to bed. But really though, it's not like Friday is in any danger of sanction because of this, but I do feel the summary could be better worded. It's more accurate to say that she unblocked after several other users attempted to contact me without success. I think she would have joined in any discussion before unblocking, had there been any. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"In view of his previous desysopping, he may not request to have his adminship restored."

Isn't this clearly going against consensus? If a supermajority of Wikipedians think he's reformed and would make a good admin again, even if he has messed up twice before, why should their consensus be overruled by a small group of people? I suggest having a restriction on another RfA, such as making it longer, to clearly determine consensus. --Rory096 00:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well we (meaning those of us who voted repeatedly to resysop guanaco) were wrong. As a person who believed Guanaco when he said he had reformed, I see no problem with admitting that we were mistaken. --Tony Sidaway 01:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As per my comment, he can apply for leave from the committee to reapply at any stage. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul Vogel could apply to be unbanned. That doesn't mean you'll do it. —Guanaco 17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

True. But then I didn't say we would. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

---

This statement sounds really really harsh to me, and it actually sounds like it's a little against the spirit of the project. I can definitely see a reason for it, he *just* got the adminship back and did something really silly and desysop-worthy. Also, remember that arbcom only has jurisdiction to ban people for a year. I definitely don't think that should apply here, but I think that arbcom should consider it as a fact, and limit the ban on being sysopped. He was desysopped for around a year last time, so they might want to set the limit to two or so...and i'd definitely want to see some sort of probation for when he gets it back.. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 01:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to make a distinction here between infinite and indefinite. Guanaco is indefinitely desysopped, but has leave to make another request after appeal to the Arbitration Committee. This is like previous cases where we have desysopped and given a minumum time period before an editor may reapply for adminship, but in this case, there is no such stipulation. Also, note that arbcom has made plenty of indefinite remedies, and that general bans are limited to a year is by convention. Dmcdevit·t 22:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is necessary, expanding on Dom's statement above, that the Arbitration Committee is not limited to remedies of a year. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I could have swore that, for bans anyways, the ArbCom was limited to a single year. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Only by convention. -Splash^talk 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I recall, possibly wrongly, that when Jimbo suggested/created/whatever the ArbCom that he set a strict limit of one year for bans (specifically bans, obviously they can do other things for longer as they see fit). In any event, until I find where (or if) this was said, it's kind of irrelevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid this really isn't true. We don't ban for more than a year because we're nice people (don't laugh, we really are). Of course, a one-year ban is effectively an indefinite ban, because trolls can't stay away... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep remedies

It appears that some Arbitrators think MarkSweep should be desysoped, and some think that even 1RR is too strong -- with hardly anyone in the middle. May I suggest that this RfAr stay open until some remedy regarding MarkSweep is passed? (I don't consider #7 a remedy, although it may help in some extreme circumstances.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course. The case won't close without an effective remedy. There is no disagreement whether there ought to be a remedy. Dmcdevit·t 21:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom decisions need copyediting?

Sorry if this is a bit tangential, but there's some rather strange grammar and word choice going on here. Here are a few examples:

• "Edit warring is considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles." - Looks like those verbs need to be changed to the singular, or "Edit warring" needs to be changed to "Edit wars".
• "Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other, see Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Mischaracterizations of others' edits as vandalism is a breach of civility and an assumption of good faith." - Comma splice aside, shouldn't this read "and an assumption of bad faith." or "and a failure to assume good faith."? Otherwise its meaning seems to be reversed.
• "In order to function as a collaborative project, it is essential that Wikipedia editors communicate with each other" - Um, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, but Wikipedia editors aren't "a collaborative project"; they're the collaborators.

-Silence 00:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Gah. My own sloppiness fixed. Thanks. :-) Dmcdevit·t 18:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No prob. :D -Silence 22:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there is one section "Proposed enforcement" that is not completed. It should be removed or filled out. The current text looks unprofessional. I will allow for higher heads of Wikipedia to use their judgement however. Neil Kelty 19:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

About #8, "Guanaco was desysopped"... Why was this voting conducted? It is a known fact that could warrant a statement somewhere, nothing else. More importantly, could there be any other outcome than unanimous support? If so, does it mean that the ArbCom can overrule any fact? Or is it just that an unanimous voting makes up an Arbitrator's day? This is disturbing me for quite a while, so I'd be happy if an Arbitrator could comment on this. Thank you, Misza13 ^{T C} 14:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just how we record our cases. Presenting all the information here allows the decision to be an historical record that can easily be read and referenced in the future. We vote on every part of our decision - otherwise, were do we decide what needs voting on and what doesn't?

Can we overrule any fact? Well, if we start saying that the sky is purple and that all grass is actually green rabbits' ears that are poking up from under the soil, you have complete permission to ignore us.

And yes, we do like unanimous voting. It makes us feel all warm and fuzzy. Sam Korn ^{(warm and fuzzy)} 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the pleasures of groupthink. —Guanaco 16:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And of course, facts deemed irrelevant to the case have been voted down before, even if they were facts. In this case that fact helps establish the reasoning for the remedies. Dmcdevit·t 18:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)