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.

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.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Paul August ☎ 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

1) Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Paul August ☎ 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2. Close. Paul August ☎ 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. Charles Matthews 07:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]