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 9 active Arbitrators, so 5 votes are a majority.

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Assume good faith

1) Editors on Wikipedia are expected to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project in-line with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming. However, as oft-quoted from Jimmy Wales, "our social policies are not a suicide pact".

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Reasonable behavior

2) Editors on Wikipedia are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and etiquette.

Support:

James F. (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Updated some terminology. Kirill 03:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 15:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Non-native speakers

3) Editors on Wikipedia who are non-native speakers should not a priori be considered inferior contributors, but should be assessed on the merits of their input. Those who have poor skills in English should be helped to improve the project as much as is practical.

Support:

James F. (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC) But not wholly-happy with this wording.[reply]
Kirill 03:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 15:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Detrimental editing

4) The core purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Stefanomencarelli

1) Stefanomencarelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), though acting in good faith, has been unable to refrain from making edits that are a net detriment to the project; he remains unwilling to work constructively with other editors ([1]), and frequently engages in incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ([2]).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Stefanomencarelli banned

1) Stefanomencarelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

Kirill 03:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 15:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, if after a substantial period of time (at least 4 to 6 months), Stefanomencarelli contacts the Committee asking for his ban to be lifted and replaced with editing restrictions, I would support. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

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.

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.

Close. Done. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Kirill 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. James F. (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close Fred Bauder (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]