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 (excluding 2 who 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.

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:

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Editors whose editing is restricted by the Committee are expected to refrain from the behavior which resulted in those restrictions being imposed. Failure to do so may lead to additional restrictions, up to and including a ban from the project.

Support:

1. Kirill 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Support:

1. Kirill 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.

Support:

1. Kirill 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.

Support:

1. Kirill 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

Support:

1. Kirill 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The dispute revolves around the definition of the term "republic", and covers a number of closely related articles, including List of republics, Republic, Classical republic, Roman Republic, Res publica, and several others.

Support:

1. Kirill 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) WHEELER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER, in which his behavior was the subject of several remedies. In particular:

• An official recommendation shall be made to WHEELER to change his style of commenting on talk pages to one that gives a calmer and more reasonable impression and to strive to work better with others.
• WHEELER is reminded that Wikipedia is not the place to advocate a viewpoint.

Support:

1. Kirill 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Since the previous Arbitration case, WHEELER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to engage in disruptive behavior, including personal attacks ([1]), deliberately provocative edits ([2], [3]), and advocacy coupled with generally unreasonable talk-page behavior ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]).

Support:

1. Kirill 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Kirill 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 19:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Needed as the remedy in the last case was ignored. FloNight 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

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.

With 6 as the required majority, everything passes. Newyorkbrad 04:45, 24 August 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. Everything passes. James F. (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight 11:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill 12:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Paul August ☎ 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]