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.

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:

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:

Revert parole

1) William Mauco ( talk · contribs), MariusM ( talk · contribs), EvilAlex ( talk · contribs), Domitius ( talk · contribs), Alaexis ( talk · contribs), and Buffadren ( talk · contribs) are limited to one content revert per article per day until the conclusion of this case. Furthermore, each content revert must be accompanied by a rationale on the article's talk page.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Single-purpose accounts

1) Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
10. Paul August ☎ 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

"Astroturfing"

2) Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for so-called " astroturfing", i.e. concerted, externally driven campaigns that are designed to promote a given agenda in such a way as to give the fake impression of wide-spread and spontaneous popular support for an issue, is extremely disruptive and damaging to the project. Accounts that are shown to be connected to such campaigns will be banned. Other accounts, especially single-purpose accounts, whose contribution profile coincides conspicuously with a known astroturfing campaign, can be treated as sock- or meatpuppets and be banned also.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Yes. I think speaking about what is disruptive in such terms is within the AC remit, of ruling on editor behaviour. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. I don't think this is legislating; I think this is clarifying. Second choice, though. - jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Not our role to legislate policy, and there is no need to do so since this area is adequately covered elsewhere. reply

Abstain:

1. Disrupting Wikipedia is always bad, but I don't actually think that we need to distinguish between the various external impulses that cause it. Existing NPOV, conflict of interest, and meat puppet rules can adequately deal with this, without are needing to hunt down external conspiracies. SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Astroturfing (rewrite)

2.1) Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for so-called " astroturfing," that is, creating a false impression of widespread, spontaneous, popular support for an issue, is disruptive. Relevant policies include WP:NPOV, Conflict of interest, WP:SOCK, and WP:SPAM.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) First choice. reply
5. First choice. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
8. (First choice) FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 15:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

"Astroturfing"

1) There is substantial evidence, published by reliable sources outside Wikipedia ( [1], [2], [3], [4]), that there exists a professionally concerted campaign of promoting pro-Transnistrian opinions on the web in the fashion of "astroturfing". This campaign operates from several countries. Among the websites connected with this campaign is "www.tiraspoltimes.com". Editors professionally connected with tiraspoltimes have edited Wikipedia to promote this and related websites and the political views they represent. This includes User:MarkStreet, User:William Mauco and their sockpuppets.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) I believe that it is valuable for us to preserve a summary of the root causes of the conflict despite the fact that they are external. reply
3. I've added a source (from The Economist 28 May 2007) which is convincing enough on this point. Charles Matthews 18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Agree about value of Economist. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Though I share Simon's discomfort. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
8. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC) But I take Simon's point. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I'm always very hesitant to rule on findings about the world outside of Wikipedia. While the evidence seems convincing, I have absolutely no expertise in Transnistrian issues, and have no way of assessing whether the blogs linked are reliable sources. Moreover, the cause of the disruption is unnecessary to the case. All we need to know is that there is disruption. - SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Mark Street / Buffadren

2) MarkStreet ( talk · contribs), aka Mark us street ( talk · contribs), is a single-purpose account professionally connected in real life to an organisation whose purpose it is to promote Transnistrian independence. He has stated he works for Tiraspol Times ( [5]), and identified himself as its founder and chief editor, Des Grant ( [6])

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editing by MarkStreet

2a) MarkStreet has engaged in disruptive editing on Wikipedia, including extensive sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, revert warring, and violating Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy by pushing for the inclusion of links to his external site.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Buffadren

2b) Buffadren ( talk · contribs) is a sock- or meatpuppet of MarkStreet. Although he did not use both accounts simultaneously, he has violated WP:SOCK by persistently denying any relation with MarkStreet, thus faking a larger amount of editorial support for the positions they both advocated. He has edited disruptively by engaging in extended revert wars and pushing for the inclusion of links to his external site.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

William Mauco

3) William Mauco ( talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account promoting a pro-Transnistrian POV and engaged in a long-standing conflict with MariusM and other pro-Moldovan editors. He has a history of disruptive and tendentious editing, involving extensive sockpuppeting, revert warring, using Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Associations of William Mauco

3a) It is likely that William Mauco is associated with the same external professional organisation promoting Transnistria as MarkStreet. He has worked for them openly on at least one occasion, publishing pro-Transnistrian texts on the "Tiraspol Times" website ( [7]).

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Per SimonP below. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Per Simon. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I really don't think the ArbCom should, or needs to, delve into people's off-wiki biographies in cases like this. SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

MariusM

4) MariusM ( talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account promoting a pro-Moldovan POV and engaged in a long-standing conflict with MarkStreet and other pro-Transnistrian editors. He has a history of disruptive and tendentious editing, involving revert warring, creation of abusive POV forks, using Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield, and abusing his user space for political soapboxing.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

   James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

3. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not supported by evidence. Fred Bauder 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Yeah, Fred's right here. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 14:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Indeed, my mistake, too. James F. (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
6. While MariusM may well be deserving of some sanction, I see no evidence presented to support this finding. Paul August ☎ 16:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

EvilAlex

5) EvilAlex ( talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account promoting a pro-Moldovan POV and engaged in a long-standing conflict with MarkStreet and other pro-Transnistrian editors. He has a history of disruptive and tendentious editing, involving revert warring, creation of abusive POV forks, using Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield, and abusing his user space for political soapboxing.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {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.

MarkStreet and sockpuppets banned from Transnistria-related edits

1) As an abusive and tendentious single-purpose account trying to professionally abuse Wikipedia for externally motivated political propaganda purposes, MarkStreet ( talk · contribs) and all his alternate accounts, including Buffadren ( talk · contribs), are indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to Transnistria. This ban applies to all namespaces including talk and user talk pages.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Second choice. reply
4. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Second choice. reply
6. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

MarkStreet and sockpuppets banned from Wikipedia

1.1) As an abusive and tendentious single-purpose account trying to professionally abuse Wikipedia for externally motivated political propaganda purposes, MarkStreet ( talk · contribs) and all his alternate accounts, including Buffadren ( talk · contribs), are indefinitely banned from the project.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) First choice. reply
2. Second choice Fred Bauder 13:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) First choice reply
5. First choice. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. We cannot indefinitely ban from the entire wiki as a Committee. Welcome to ArbCom101. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. James is correct. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

William Mauco banned from making Transnistria-related edits

2) As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, William Mauco ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to Transnistria. This ban applies to all namespaces including talk and user talk pages.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Second choice. reply
4. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

William Mauco banned indefinitely

2.1) As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, William Mauco ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the project.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice Fred Bauder 13:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. We cannot indefinitely ban from the entire wiki as a Committee. Welcome to ArbCom101. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

MariusM banned from making Transnistria-related edits

3) As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, MariusM ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to Transnistria. This ban applies to all namespaces including talk and user talk pages.

Support:

SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Fred Bauder 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Second choice. reply
2. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

   Second choice jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

   James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

3. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not supported by evidence Fred Bauder 14:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Not supported by evidence. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 14:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Indeed, my mistake, too. James F. (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

MariusM indefinitely banned

3.1) As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, MariusM ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the project.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply

   Second choice Fred Bauder 13:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply

2. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

   First choice. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

3. First choice. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. We cannot indefinitely ban from the entire wiki as a Committee. Welcome to ArbCom101. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 14:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
6. While MariusM may well be deserving of some sanction, I see no evidence presented to support any finding or remedy. Paul August ☎ 16:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

EvilAlex banned from making Transnistria-related edits

4) As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, EvilAlex ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to Transnistria. This ban applies to all namespaces including talk and user talk pages.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Second choice. reply
4. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
9. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

EvilAlex indefinitely banned

4.1) As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, EvilAlex ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the project.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice Fred Bauder 13:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. We cannot indefinitely ban from the entire wiki as a Committee. Welcome to ArbCom101. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1) Any user who violates a ban imposed by this decision may be blocked, for up to a year in the event of repeat offenses. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 15:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill Lokshin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
8. FloNight 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Paul August ☎ 16:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

General

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.

• Currently, Principles 1 and 2.1 (which supercedes 2), FoFs 1, 2, 2a, 2b, 3, 4 and 5, Remedies 1, 2 and 4, and the Enforcement motion all pass. It looks as though FoFs 2a and 2b are intended to be in addition to 2, but if they are meant to supersede it, please tell me. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 08:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  That's correct, they're meant as seperate FoFs; our apologies for the normal system being ignored here. :-) James F. (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

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. We are done here. FloNight 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Close Fred Bauder 13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Close. Charles Matthews 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

   Close. James F. (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Sorry, didn't mean this - we don't have any remedies about MariusM now, and I think we should note this - a reminded-to-remain-civil or commended-for-what-not, if nothing else. James F. (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

4. Close. While MariusM may well be deserving of some sanction, I see no evidence presented to support any finding or remedy. Paul August ☎ 16:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Close. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Clerk note: I construe James F.'s comment as an oppose to closing, even though he didn't use the word "oppose," so currently 3 net votes to close. Newyorkbrad 16:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Update: Now 4 net votes to close; closes Monday, absent further developments. Newyorkbrad 13:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply