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.

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) Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing, or promoting original research in any way.

Support:

1. Kirill 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 20:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Deliberate attempts to misrepresent or falsify the content of sources are extremely harmful to the project.

Support:

1. Kirill 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 20:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Administrators are normally afforded wide discretion to block users who they believe are a danger to the project.

Support:

1. Kirill 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes, we want our administrators to take action if they see a problem. Extreme violations of policy warrant extreme measures to protect the Project. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. I have always argued for this. Charles Matthews 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 20:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Wavesmikey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has for an extensive period of time engaged in knowingly misrepresenting sources in order to promote his original research on Wikipedia ([1], [2]).

Support:

1. Kirill 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked by Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and subsequently unblocked by Physchim62 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Support:

1. Kirill 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 20:47, 16 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) Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Kirill 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) The remaining parties are encouraged to move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness.

Support:

1. Kirill 04:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 20:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) {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.

• All proposals are adopted. Appears ready to close unless any arbitrators have additional proposals. Newyorkbrad 15:49, 16 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. Move to close, everything passes. Charles Matthews 15:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. Kirill 16:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. Paul August ☎ 20:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close Fred Bauder (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]