all proposed

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.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.

For this case, there are 10 active arbitrators and none are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

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[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Consensus[edit]

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The request for comment process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 13:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight 15:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 04:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Freedom skies[edit]

1) Freedom skies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in edit-warring, for which he has been blocked numerous times.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 13:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight 15:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 04:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Freedom skies[edit]

2) Freedom skies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used sockpuppets during this Arbitration case ([1]).

Support:

1. FloNight 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill Lokshin 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Paul August ☎ 04:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {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.

Freedom skies placed on revert parole[edit]

1) Freedom skies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Based on this Fred Bauder 16:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 13:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight 15:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 04:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Freedom skies must use one account[edit]

2) Freedom skies shall select one account and use only that account. Any other account used may be indefinitely banned. Pending selection of an account Freedom skies may not edit Wikipedia.

Support:

1. FloNight 10:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 13:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill Lokshin 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 04:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Charles Matthews 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 13:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Prefer more flexibility Fred Bauder 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Enforcement by block[edit]

1.1) Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period of time. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin 16:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. SimonP 13:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight 15:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Paul August ☎ 04:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

General[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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 a majority in this case of 6, the finding and revert parole remedy pass 6-0 Thatcher131 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFD just notified me on my talk page that a RFCU against Freedom skies returned as "likely". See WP:RFCU#Freedom_skies. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's only a problem if he continues this behavior after the decision is finalized. It was a mistake to run the RFCU, actually -- it should have simply been referred to us, since the arbitration was still in process. I was making the same mistake this morning -- I'd started to do the RFCU myself, but then got busy so couldn't finish it, though I'd discovered already the multiple accounts. I don't think we need to add anything, since we apply our remedies to people, not usernames -- the same revert parole we'll be applying to Freedom skies applies to any of his socks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User requested on Workshop page for a RFCU; not sure whether it was the correct place to put it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was, and I just didn't notice it. Nevermind. Tsk. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

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. Ready to close now. FloNight 10:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Change to oppose. I think the sockpuppetry needs to be addressed before we close with a remedy instructing the user to use one account. FloNight 09:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Close now that remedy 2 passes. FloNight 14:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close. Kirill Lokshin 11:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close Fred Bauder 13:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. SimonP 14:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. if my analysis in the above section is correct. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose, pending additional votes on remedy 2. Paul August ☎ 04:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Close. Paul August ☎ 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Close, remedy 2 passes. Charles Matthews 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]