From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 8 active Arbitrators, so 5 votes are a majority.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 3 Proposed final decision 3.1 Proposed principles 3.1.1 Keeping one's cool 3.1.2 Template 3.2 Proposed findings of fact 3.2.1 Commodore Sloat and Biophys 3.2.2 Nature of evidence 3.2.3 Template 3.3 Proposed remedies 3.3.1 Parties instructed 3.3.2 Template 3.4 Discussion by Arbitrators 3.4.1 General 3.5 Motion to close 3.5.1 Implementation notes 3.5.2 Vote

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Keeping one's cool

1) Editors are expected to keep their cool when editing. Uncivil behavior by others should not be returned in kind. Casual allegations of poor wikiquette are considered harmful; such concerns should be brought up in appropriate forums, if at all.

Support:

1. Kirill 23:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Paul August ☎ 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Commodore Sloat and Biophys

1) Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) have accused each other of disruptive editing and various other violations of policy.

Support:

1. Kirill 23:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Paul August ☎ 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Nature of evidence

2) The evidence presented, while indicative of some areas of concern, does not demonstrate substantially disruptive editing on a level requiring sanctions from the Committee.

Support:

1. Kirill 23:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Paul August ☎ 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Parties instructed

1) Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are instructed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way. Failure to do so voluntarily may result in the imposition of a formal restriction on their editing.

Support:

1. Kirill 23:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Paul August ☎ 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] 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.

• Everything passes. A motion to close can be made any time. Picaroon (t) 22:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. Close. Kirill 23:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Close. Paul August ☎ 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Close. Charles Matthews 07:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)