Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed decision

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 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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=

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Decorum
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Reliable sources
3) Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially the last sentence. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 04:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Novel approaches
4) The apparent failure of Wikipedia's traditional dispute resolution system—including the Committee's traditional past approaches—to resolve the conflicts plaguing certain problematic areas within Wikipedia forces the Committee to adopt novel approaches and methods in order to work towards the resolution of these conflicts.


 * Support:
 * A preface, more or less. Kirill (prof) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep! ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Forces" is a mite too strong, but the business is certainly on our agenda. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Paul August &#9742; 03:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Disagree with "apparent failure" and "forces". From the perspective of the Committee, it is difficult not to form a jaundiced view. I believe that most things are not as bad as they seem.


 * Abstain:
 * We accepted this case partially on the basis that existing remedies had not been successful (or at least, were perceived not to be successful). But the occasional failure or impasse of community-based remedies, or our own previous approaches, is contemplated within the dispute resolution system by the very presence of escalating tiers of dispute resolution methods, and is not necessarily problematic. --bainer (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
5) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is unforgoable.

The neutral point of view's requirement that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source.


 * Support:
 * NPOV is the key issue when the problem is advocacy (whether pro or con). Wording taken from Prem Rawat. --bainer (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
6) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Area of conflict
1) The conflicts presented in this case revolve around homeopathy and various related topics. Past attempts to resolve these conflicts, including Committee rulings and community-imposed sanctions, have failed to resolve the underlying issues or to restore stability to the affected articles.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 04:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

DanaUllman
2) has engaged in advocacy of homeopathy on Wikipedia.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 'pushed a pro-homeopathic point of view' would be a more accurate description; the evidence does not suggest that DanaUllman was specifically urging that Wikipedians use homeopathic remedies. However this is a minor quibble. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Paul August &#9742; 17:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Template
3) {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.

Sourcing Adjudication Board
1) The Committee shall convene a Sourcing Adjudication Board, consisting of credentialed subject-matter experts insofar as is reasonable, which shall be tasked with examining complaints regarding the inappropriate use of sources on Wikipedia. The Board shall issue findings, directly to the Committee, regarding all questions of source usage, including, but not limited to, the following:
 * Whether an editor has engaged in misrepresentation of sources or their content.
 * Whether an editor has used unreliable or inappropriate sources.
 * Whether an editor has otherwise substantially violated any portion of the sourcing policies and guidelines.

The Board's findings shall not be subject to appeal except to the Board itself. The precise manner in which the Board will be selected and conduct its operations will be determined, with appropriate community participation, no later than one month after the closure of this case.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What we've done in the past is not working. Need to jump start a new process to get the best outcome. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some finessing may be needed, per FT2, but that can be done after this case. James F. (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've held off voting on this aspect to give me time to assess it. Having done so, I think such a board as a formal body would be very helpful to editors and to the project as a whole. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Paul August &#9742; 16:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC). I have serious reservations about the wisdom of such an approach. In addition this seems to be an attempt to extend the Committee's reach into the area of content decisions, something I am strongly opposed to.
 * I agree; and I think the implications for fundamental ideas on "reliable source" need very careful review, before we go down this road. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Switched from abstain) - Reservations persist, although I sympathize with frustrations. There may well be better ways to achieve such a goal though, and the reservations are serious ones fundamental to the project, yet I see no viable discussion of them. FT2 (Talk 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still not convinced this is the best way to go forward. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We've gone so far as to make decisions about #1 before ourselves, in Franco-Mongol alliance, and in that regard this would be a delegation of what we've previously done; however, #2 and #3 seems to go beyond what we've previously been comfortable with (which is somewhat unsteady ground in itself). This would be workable in another form, if it were merely a delegation of our investigative processes. --bainer (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Support discussing with other Committee members and consulting as needed. Not ready just yet to commit to going ahead without that bit more discussion. My talk page comment outlines a few key areas where assurance is needed that issues had been carefully considered and thought through and the community and project were well cared for. FT2 (Talk 04:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Switching to oppose at this time, see comment for reason. FT2 (Talk 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Expedited sanctions
2) Upon receipt of a finding of inappropriate conduct from the Sourcing Adjudication Board, the Committee shall, without opening a case, issue appropriate sanctions (up to and including a ban from the project) against those editors named by the Board as having substantially violated sourcing policy.


 * Support:
 * Provided R#1 or some form thereof passes, obviously. Kirill (prof) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Paul August &#9742; 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not however certain here. Misuse of sources can be sanctionable and we have done so, most recently in the PHG case. However there is a lot of water between knowingly misusing, and sources which are introduced by a user who does not actually understand what it says, or realise who the author is. I am wary about expediting sanctions on editors who make mistakes with their sources; obviously the article should be corrected immediately. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per oppose on #1. bainer (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I am not however certain here. Misuse of sources can be sanctionable and we have done so, most recently in the PHG case. However there is a lot of water between knowingly misusing, and sources which are introduced by a user who does not actually understand what it says, or realise who the author is. I am wary about expediting sanctions on editors who make mistakes with their sources; obviously the article should be corrected immediately. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (Switched to oppose)

Discretionary sanctions
3) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
 * Appeals

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.
 * Uninvolved administrators

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy.
 * Logging


 * Support:
 * Second choice. Kirill (prof) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer other wording. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Prefer R1. James F. (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Go with 3.1. We should not hamstring honest admins, and open up opportunities for wikilawyers. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Paul August &#9742; 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
3.1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
 * Appeals

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.
 * Uninvolved administrators

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy.
 * Logging


 * Support:
 * First choice; identical to the original except for a change in the definition of uninvolved administrators. Kirill (prof) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Both R1 and this remedy; both are needed, I think. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see this as the appropriate way to enforce sourcing issues for the time being. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer R1. James F. (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why we should narrow the definition of involvement in this way. --bainer (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Paul August &#9742; 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * Better. Want to get the best wording possible so I want to think a bit more to see if it needs any more tweaking. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman banned
4) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Support:
 * Kirill (prof) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, after a long learning period, DanaUllman is still not following the core content and conduct policies. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With regret but things like this edit marked as 'formatting' are just not acceptable . Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That diff link's covering multiple diffs: this one which adds all the new material, and has a suitable edit summary, and this and this which are formatting edits and are titled "formatting". FT2 (Talk 23:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out; you're right. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Paul August &#9742; 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.''
 * In this revision (changes since), ie. 02:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC), everything passes except R2 (would need one more support/an abstention to pass) and R3 (R3.1 passes instead). Daniel (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * R1 no longer passes, as of 01:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Remedies 3.1 and 4 only, pass. Thatcher 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As Coren has not returned, I'll close and use the chance to train User:Nishkid64 — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Passing at this time: P1,2,3,4; F1,2; R3.1 (because of the abstention), 4  —  Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We plan to close this at 7pm or so, 30 Jun, east US time. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * Move to close, since we are apparently done voting here. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support close, conditional on R3.1 continuing to pass. Although I'm in favour of it as a principle, a significant creation such as the Sourcing board needs a clear majority support and it is clear that it will not get it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Close, per Sam. Pushing through something like the SAB by a narrow margin is likely not the best course of action for us to take. Kirill (prof) 01:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Close, per Sam. The Committee has identified a need but we do not have consensus on the specific solution in the form of a Sourcing Board. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)