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:

Proposed final decision Information

Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy requires all encyclopedic content to be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly and without bias all significant views on a topic.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight 19:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Paul August ☎ 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
9. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
10. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conflict of interest

2) Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from making a genuine, good-faith effort to edit from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas. Instead, they may make suggestions or propose content on the talk pages of affected articles.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight 19:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Paul August ☎ 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
9. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
10. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recruiting editors with conflicts of interest

3) Recruiting editors to join Wikipedia for the purpose of editing in subject areas where they have duties, allegiances, or beliefs at odds with our NPOV policy is highly disruptive, since a numeric majority of editors pursuing a particular point of view may overwhelm efforts by others to seek NPOV.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not relevant; I don't see any evidence that recruitment occurred. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. On the point of drafting, this is unclear. Non-NPOV editing is disruptive, per se. Charles Matthews 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Per Charles. Lack of evidence. James F. (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Important principle indeed, but not sure if using it here is needed. FloNight 19:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Per Charles. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. SimonP 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Disclosure

4) Editors who work in subject areas where a perception may arise that they have duties or allegiances that could prevent them from writing neutrally and objectively are encouraged to disclose the nature and extent of any such duties or allegiances.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight 19:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Paul August ☎ 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
9. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
10. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

User names

5) Username policy discourages the use of names of corporations and other organizations as user names. While the main reason for this prohibition is to discourage casual promotion of relatively unknown organizations by this means, an ancillary reason is to avoid questions of whether the user is acting in some official capacity for the organization so named.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight 19:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Paul August ☎ 16:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
9. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
10. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Responsibility of organizations

6) Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.

Support:

1. I feel this better addresses our position and the issues in this case than the principle about recruitment. FloNight 19:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Much better. The recruitment one makes no sense at all. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Paul August ☎ 16:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
7. James F. (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
10. SimonP 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Harassment

7) Concentrating negative attention on one or a few other users is a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment.

Support:

1. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 11:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

   Comment: this is taken directly from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

2. Fred Bauder 13:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Wiil reconsider if a differently worded principle is proposed, but this seems okay for now. FloNight 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Paul August ☎ 22:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC) (Perhaps we should consider Bishonen's wording on the workshop page. Paul August ☎ 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)) reply

Oppose:

1. I think this is too loosely worded and can be misinterpreted. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Too broadly worded; this could cover any of a number of legitimate activities. Kirill 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. SimonP 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Harassment

7.1) Inappropriately concentrating negative attention on one or a few other users is a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. This does not preclude legitimate complaints or inquiries about the behavior of other users.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Better, yes. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 15:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Paul August ☎ 17:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Kirill 20:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Multiple editors with a single voice

8) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood)

Support:

1. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 00:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Yes, this states that usual way that the community and the Committee handles the issue. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. James F. (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Paul August ☎ 13:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

COFS ( talk · contribs)

1) User COFS, through a pattern of editing and user and talk page posts, appears to be working towards a pro-Scientology point of view at the expense of NPOV.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
9. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
10. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

COFS as a username

2) COFS is a common abbreviation for the Church of Scientology. As such, this user name is in violation of applicable policy. Further, there is confusion as to whether this user is acting in some official capacity on behalf of the Church of Scientology.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
9. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
10. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Recruitment

3) The most plausible explanation for the presence of a number of users editing from a pro-Scientology point of view who appear to share the same physical network connection with COFS ( talk · contribs) is that these users have been recruited by COFS or a related individual.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Recruitment isn't necessary for what has occurred. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Explanation is unnecessary. James F. (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. per James F. FloNight 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. We're getting into off-wiki here. Charles Matthews 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Harassment of User:Justanother by User:Anynobody

4) Anynobody has since at least March 2007 complained to and of Justanother with great frequency and persistence, and sometimes without relevance to mainspace editing, on WP:ANI, a variety of user talkpages, WP:RFA, and other fora, some of them clearly not intended for such use.

Support:

1. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 12:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 13:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Paul August ☎ 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Kirill 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
8. SimonP 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of Church of Scientology-owned IPs

5) Checkuser evidence shows that multiple editors have made strongly pro-Scientology POV edits from Scientology-owned IPs, in particular ws.churchofscientology.org and ns1.scientology.org.

Support:

1. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 00:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. James F. (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Paul August ☎ 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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.

COFS banned for 30 days

1) User:COFS's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 30 days.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

   Kirill 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) This case has dragged on enough to make this pointless. Kirill 18:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

   Wimpy, Wimpy Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

2. SimonP 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Charles Matthews 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

   Paul August ☎ 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC) As time goes by this makes less and less sense. Paul August ☎ 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

4. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

   Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I don't see any finding supporting this. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 05:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. No proof of need that I can see. James F. (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Hopeful that other remedies will work. FloNight 19:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Not necessary now. Fred Bauder 02:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply
5. No longer necessary. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 05:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

COFS must select a new username

2) User:COFS must choose a new user name, request reattribution of previous edits to this new name, and maintain links between the two user pages.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
7. (Excluding the upon return part) FloNight 19:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Paul August ☎ 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC) I've removed the unecessary "Upon return" qualifier. reply
9. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Seems to me this is rather useless, given that User:COFS has already changed his name; I'm not sure what the point would be of requiring reattribtion of previous edits. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Seems rather pointless, but I don't feel strongly enough to oppose it either. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Disclosure

3) Prior to further editing of Scientology-related articles (to be construed broadly), User:COFS must disclose on his or her user page the nature and extent of any duties or allegiances he or she has to the Church of Scientology or related entities.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply

   Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

3. SimonP 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Charles Matthews 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

   James F. (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

5. Paul August ☎ 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Not entirely comfortable with this remedy. The exact who is much less important than there is biased editing, be it an official representative of the church, a loyal follower, or a troublemaker impersonating the church. In any case, the bias from this account has raised alarm and needs to be addressed. FloNight 19:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. I don't think this is necessary -- and COFS is not the only CoS typist here. What about the rest of them (Misou, etc.?) -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 15:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Not needed. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. On reflection, I'm not so comfortable with this. Asking people to divulge their religion (though my government doesn't accept this term for Scientology) that they can edit is a bit... awkward. James F. (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Fred Bauder 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Recruiting

4) User:COFS is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
4. SimonP 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Charles Matthews (I have now removed the word 'additional' here; this should now read as a prompt to follow something said in WP:SOCK.) 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. James F. (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

   Yes, but we need a principle and fof that is worded better so this remedy has some basis of fact. FloNight 19:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

7. Paul August ☎ 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No evidence any recruiting occurred. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply
2. No principle or Fof that I think support this remedy. FloNight 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Pre-emptive, assumes definite recruiting. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Anynobody prohibited from harassing Justanother

5) Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother.

Support:

1. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 13:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. First choice James F. (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
6. First choice. Kirill 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Paul August ☎ 18:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
8. SimonP 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Paul August ☎ 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC) (Prefer 5.1) reply

Abstain:

Anynobody and Justanother prohibited from harassing each other

5.1) Anynobody and Justanother are prohibited from harassing each other.

Support:

Paul August ☎ 22:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC) (I've changed my mind. Paul August ☎ 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)) reply

1. Second choice. Kirill 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. James F. (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice Fred Bauder 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. No evidence has been presented that Justanother has done anything to warrant such a prohibition. If some is presented, a symmetric remedy would be appropriate. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Justanother urged to avoid

6) Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. This remedy implies no judgement concerning Justanother's conduct, but is intended to ensure a balanced situation together with remedy 5, above.

Support:

1. Paul August ☎ 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Well thought out. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Moved. This is a remedy (as its text states, indeed), not an enforcement. James F. (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight ♥♥♥ 03:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 04:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Fred Bauder 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Article probation

7) All Scientology-related articles are placed on Article probation.

Support:

1. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 00:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. James F. (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Paul August ☎ 13:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 04:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement of prohibition on harassment

Anynobody

1) Should Anynobody violate the prohibition on harassment, they may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 12:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 13:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Harassment in the judgement of a sysop, obviously. James F. (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Paul August ☎ 22:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC) 2nd choice. reply
6. First choice. Kirill 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
7. SimonP 13:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 04:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Justanother

2) Should Justanother violate the prohibition on harassment, they may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Paul August ☎ 22:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Changed my mind. Paul August ☎ 19:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Second choice. Kirill 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
2. (Split into targets). Conditional support on needed remedy passing, obviously. James F. (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 19:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Template

3) {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.

• Passing at this time are:
  • Proposed principles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8;
  • Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 4, and 5;
  • Proposed remedies 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7;
  • Proposed enforcement 1. Cbrown1023 talk 03:02, 23 September 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.

Support:

# Close Paul August ☎ 02:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Withdraw my motion to close. Paul August ☎ 13:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Okay to close now, I think. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Issues remain, but enough Fred Bauder 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Good enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply
4. I'd still like to see the harassment principle included, but it's policy anyway, so let's close. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 01:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

# Oppose; remedy 3 should be reconsidered. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose per jpgordon. If discussion proves futile I won't hold this up forever. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 04:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

   Oppose per jpgordon. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

   Also, I agree with Newyorkbrad. I feel that the delay in closing this case makes the 30 ban much too harsh. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Change to support. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply